CapnZapp
Legend
Probably true.It assumes that advantage is rare.
In the real world, savvy players never use it without advantage (except at uncommonly low ACs)
Probably true.It assumes that advantage is rare.
I don't often use feats in my games, but I have some experience with them as DM and a player, particularly Sharpshooter.
One of my favorite characters is Red Creek Rufus, a ranger. He's the world's greatest fisherman, so his primary weapon is a net. With Sharpshooter, that means I can actually throw it from range and suffer no penalty, then have his boar, Belvedere, charge and knock down the target. Prone and restrained sucks big time and this is the primary tactic against a high-AC monster. .
Uncommonly low? If all you care about is average damage, which is a mistake for the reasons I say above, there are a lot of creatures where it makes sense, and many of those appear in higher volumes (fodder or soldier types that are used a lot).Probably true.
In the real world, savvy players never use it without advantage (except at uncommonly low ACs)
Is everyone always attacking with advantage, or am I missing some other game changing aspect?
Math is math... The actual performance of the feats 5/10 feature - as stated - varies by the circumstances involved - most notably the hit chances and base damage.If you think you can disprove its real life performance in actual play with your spurious math, think again.
This would seem to,imply enemies are never giving you disadvantage.I am. Because that's what Reckless Attack does. It also doubles my crit chance helping me land that bonus action attack from GWM.
Barbarian+GWM are a match made in heaven.
This would seem to,imply enemies are never giving you disadvantage.
That must be fun.
Tactically, disad-ing heavy hitters is usually a good idea.
Yup that would be a campaign setting element, circumstance, that strongly favors the combo, etc.Definitely a good idea, but indeed I haven't encountered too many that give disadvantage on melee attack rolls.