Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6927426" data-attributes="member: 996">I can't imagine.  That chest full of medals from the edition war, perhaps?Finagling a +5 (canceling a -5) would be pretty brutal to Bounded Accuracy, in itself, though, wouldn't it?Yep.  The more so the more often you attack, and in a relative sense, the more so the closer you were to needing a 20 to hit.  In 5e, you definitely can attack quite a lot, so it's a bigger benefit than in 4e when you rarely got multiple attacks, or in 3e, where your multiple attacks had declining BAB and required a full action.  OTOH, in 5e, your chance to hit is usually pretty good at a baseline, around 65%, vs 50% in 4e, and declining in 3e (buffing to hit was actually really good for those iterative attacks) - all in theory, of course. with opportunity cost really being the main thing to consider (eg cast prayer or fireball). I think you are getting at something here.  In 5e, it's generally pretty easy to hit, to begin with.  ACs just don't get all that crazy high, so you're often able to hit quite easily, a buff to attack isn't that potent when you're not missing a lot, already.  What SS/GWM does, then, is to make attack buffing much more effective, precisely because of the penalty.  To the extent that the bonus is remotely worth it without buffing, it's going to be excessively good with enough of it...And, of course, the DM is free to do all that, and much, much more...Sure.  Extra Attack, multi-attacking of any kind, really, breaks D&D, in general.  Always has.  It's just too much of a multiplier on whatever you can use to enhance attacks.  In 5e, between BA and lack of content, there aren't the huge number of bonuses to stack onto your attacks there were in 3e, but there are enough, and SS/GWM stand out as two of the biggest.  The latter sounds pretty reasonable.  Maybe SS could be limited to the first attack each round, on the theory that you don't have as much chance to 'aim' the rest (flimsy theory, I know), while GWM could consume a bonus action to designate which attack is affected?So, yeah, I admit, I more or less buy the argument that they're broken (maybe not that they're wildly broken).They're also optional. I don't use feats when I run outside of AL, so I'm good.For anyone who doesn't agree with me, they're available.  For anyone who does, and wants to fix them, there are fairly obvious ways of doing so (and it'd be nice to see discussions of the same that don't devolve into arguments over whether they 'need' to be fixed or not).   Strength of 5e's DM Empowerment/rulings-not-rules philosophy.</blockquote>

Verification