D&D 5E When -5/+10 starts becoming Very Reliable?

[Kusodareka]

No, because you're averaging out all the times you're not getting the bonus with the times you do.

And that's not a useful statistic,plain and simple.

The feat's massive power lies in giving you an unprecedented +10 bonus to damage for SOME fights. That's the huge spike in "spotlight time" you can't get any other way.

The fact you aren't using it all the time is irrelevant.

You can't even say you're back -1 to damage (and further back because -1 to attacks), because you can still have Strength 20!

Actually, how often one can use the feat is very relevant.

A feat that I can use every fight is worth more (twice?) one that I can use every other fight.
A feat that I can only use against half of my enemies is less (half as?) useful as one I can use against all enemies.

Damage Per Attack is the most logical way to account for this. It also accounts for the increase probability of missing.

There is some subjectivity there to be sure. Some people might not value DPA of +1 for 100% of fights as exactly that of DPA of +2 for 50% of fights. But to dismiss the fact that the feat is useless against half of your likely enemies (high AC ones) is not arguing based on logic.

 

[Prism]

No, because you're averaging out all the times you're not getting the bonus with the times you do.

And that's not a useful statistic,plain and simple.

The feat's massive power lies in giving you an unprecedented +10 bonus to damage for SOME fights. That's the huge spike in "spotlight time" you can't get any other way.

The fact you aren't using it all the time is irrelevant.

You can't even say you're back -1 to damage (and further back because -1 to attacks), because you can still have Strength 20!

We are taking all of this into account. Assuming you only use the +10 bonus when it is mathematically beneficial to do so the average extra damage per strike is not +10 at all, but in fact somewhere between 1 and 5 based on the fact you miss more often. All the examples in this thread also assume that bless is running constantly. The feat is slightly better with continual advantage such as from a barbarian or the foresight spell, but even then doesn't equate to a full +10 damage bonus unless your attack bonus is already so much higher than the monsters AC that after the -5 you still hit on a 2 - which makes advantage then a moot point

 

[Prism]

Hm, no. The damage increase will be exactly +10 (on top of however much weapon + str + ? Yields).
But this isn't really a negative of any sort. The players WANT to do big damage, consistantly. All I need to do is plan combat encounters keeping this in mind. (Mostly all this will entail is increasing/maxing HP so that everyone gets a chance to wack the monsters a few times. And increase the #s of weaker foes so cleaving through them doesn't end things too fast.) But planning encounters with the parties capabilities in mind is something a DM should be doing regardless.
Those who complain about this feat? They (or thier DMs) don't plan accordingly. Or they're ranting in a vacum.

As for "compounding the issue" with +weapons? There is no issue. My games can withstand alot of magic. Be that in the form of mere +s all the way up to WISH (yes, with capitol letters).

I agree that the DM can easily account for any changes to the game. But its not +10 as some others have also responded. Without a constant source of bonuses to hit like bless, advantage and magic weapons then you miss a lot due to the -5 penalty. And you still miss sometimes with all these bonuses. For example a typically 6th level fighter might be at just +1 to hit using this feat which means they will miss more than hit an average monster.

All I am suggesting is don't account for them doing +10 damage per hit but more like +1 to +3 at least initially, if you are looking to increase encounter difficulty

 

[ChrisCarlson]

A feat that I can use every fight is worth more (twice?) one that I can use every other fight.
A feat that I can only use against half of my enemies is less (half as?) useful as one I can use against all enemies.

Are you sure? Perhaps if you assumed the two theoretical feats being compared offered the same exact feature/benefit/bonus, regardless of one being usable more than the other. Would not the feat less often useful likely offer more in exchange for the lack of frequency/access? Then what? How might that impact your assumption that one is worth more (twice?) than the other?