The Balance implications of Bonus Action Feats and - 5/+10 Feats

[Longcat]

I've been having some free time lately to ponder various builds and running them through spreadsheets, as well as reading similar works from other users (shoutout to Kryx), and I can't help but notice how DPR is disproportionately topped by builds with access to two things:
-A Bonus Action attack and
-The ability to take -5 to hit for +10 to damage

Both of these are provided by Feats. Now, normally this wouldn't be a problem, but not all fighting styles get equal access to those options, and some of them do not even get anything to compensate for that, such as improved defenses. Those same fighting styles get marginalized and effectively removed in games with a modicum of optimization.

I'm starting to think that those Feats are problematic, and consider removing them from the game the next time I DM. The Feats that would get canned are Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter and also Shield Master so it doesn't fill the void.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Bladeyeoman]

-The ability to take -5 to hit for +10 to damage


Kryx is on vacation right now. I'm currently crunching some numbers, but I thiiiiink that this is not useful in as many situations as you might think.

More generally, though, you seem to be pointing out the feats that are there to increase damage. Other feats which have utility or defensive uses will inherently be inferior in increasing DPR. That's kind of the point.

I would also bear in mind that while the DPR calculations are great and all, they generally don't account for bursting abilities of spell damage. Something like War Caster could drastically increase a caster's damage in a fight (since they can cast spells for Opportunity Attacks), but this is hard to account for in DPR (since damage in this case is not as simple as "what's the damage dice for their weapon?").

[Forrestfire]

It seems like a better answer to the problem would be to elevate up the combat styles that don't get options like that, instead of removing a huge amount of options. Your proposed fix would make many choices of weapon and combat style completely meaningless, overall reducing the amount of customization and concepts in the game.

[numerek]

charger gives a bonus action attack.

[Bladeyeoman]

Okay, did my number crunching. I made a couple of heatmaps of when using the -5/+10 is useful (I'm dubbing that "power attack", even if that's not what's called in this edition). This is for damage per attack, with red corresponding to "power attack increases damage per attack", and white corresponding to "power attack decreases damage per attack".

[EDIT: THESE ARE THE CORRECTED VERSIONS]
http://i.imgur.com/jF1DlyQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/q5T8Cri.png

A few things to note:

The x axis is the "effective AC". So if the monster has an AC of 19, and you have +8 to hit (+5 from strenght, +3 from proficiency), then the effective AC is 11
Damage is for the attack in question, which is somewhat simplistic. For example, with Great Weapon Mastery, a crit or a kill can allow you an additional attack. That's context dependent, and I didn't bother to try to account for that. (this can increase or decrease the usefulness of a power attack, depending on how much HP the monster has left)
R's image() function seems to not line things up quite perfectly - the tick marks on the axes may not be in exactly the right place (but they're pretty close).
The dotted line is for a character with a greatsword (average damage = 7) and a +5 strength modifier, but no other sources of damage. As with the tick marks, this is at approximately the right height, but may be very slightly off.

[Bladeyeoman]

I don't have a DMG, so I'm not really sure what the "modified AC" is likely to be. But it seems like it's often around the 10ish range? That is, with proficiency bonus + ability score bonus + other stuff, a relatively high monster AC falls down to relatively reasonable levels. And characters who take -5/+10 feats are likely to have relatively high attack bonuses.

It obviously depends on weapon and modifier, but things like hunter's mark, smite, etc make power attacks optimal in fewer situations. Archery damage seems like it will often be lower, so the sharpshooter -5/+10 may be optimal more often than the GWM version.

Just so it's clear, the red region on the far right of the graph basically signifies "Hey, we're only (or frequently) going to be hitting only on crits, where the -5 doesn't matter". And the red on the far left is for "hey, we're almost guaranteed to hit him anyways, so we might as well add some damage".

Sidenote: this is looking at average damage per attack. However, it's important to remember that the -5/+10 will really increase variance in damage. In general, for the same amount of damage output, high variance is bad for players (since we need to survive ALL fights - a single bad fight can be enough to end us).

Other sidenote: sorry the figures don't display actual difference in damage per attack. I can put those together too.

[bid]

I think you flipped your x-axis, your "1" is effective AC 20.

[Bladeyeoman]

I think you flipped your x-axis, your "1" is effective AC 20.

You are completely correct. I'll have this fixed soon.

[Bladeyeoman]

I corrected the images. As an added bonus, here are more detailed figures with the per-attack damage gained (or lost, for negative numbers) by using -5/+10. The same caveats above apply. These numbers are determined analytically (exact expected damage, not the average of a bunch of dice rolls).

http://i.imgur.com/xwCrEjD.png

http://i.imgur.com/QZvtGPr.png

[TrollCapAmerica]

Getting rid of the good options doesn't make other styles better it just drags them down to the same level. What really needs to happen is that we get a good variety of options. That doesn't mean every weapon gets a PA option either but more things like Polearm master that give good unique benefits to a weapon or class of weapons

[Firechanter]

Ah, I _thought_ the first graphs looked funny. Good to see my understanding of mathematics was not entirely off! xD

[MaxWilson]

I've been having some free time lately to ponder various builds and running them through spreadsheets, as well as reading similar works from other users (shoutout to Kryx), and I can't help but notice how DPR is disproportionately topped by builds with access to two things:
-A Bonus Action attack and
-The ability to take -5 to hit for +10 to damage

Both of these are provided by Feats. Now, normally this wouldn't be a problem, but not all fighting styles get equal access to those options, and some of them do not even get anything to compensate for that, such as improved defected. Those same fighting styles get marginalized and effectively removed in games with a modicum of optimization.

"Optimal with respect to what"? In games that are all about racing to see who can do the most damage, as opposed to (say) optimizing to defeat the enemy with minimal resource expenditure (even if that makes it take an extra twelve seconds to kill the enemy), you'll see a definite preference for certain feats. Even there, the raw DPR advantage offered by GWM is often rather small, on the order of 20%. The big gain comes from combining GWM with tactics in interesting ways (e.g. Valor Bard Pushes the enemy prone and then Grapples him there, while the GWM fighters then come up and commences beating the prone enemy to death--the Valor Bard + GWM may increase the fighter's damage by 100%).

Accordingly, banning GWM/etc. from the game just makes it less interesting and almost forces players who are interested in tactics to switch to spellcasters instead of fighters.

[JoeJ]

I've been having some free time lately to ponder various builds and running them through spreadsheets, as well as reading similar works from other users (shoutout to Kryx), and I can't help but notice how DPR is disproportionately topped by builds with access to two things:
-A Bonus Action attack and
-The ability to take -5 to hit for +10 to damage

Both of these are provided by Feats. Now, normally this wouldn't be a problem, but not all fighting styles get equal access to those options, and some of them do not even get anything to compensate for that, such as improved defected. Those same fighting styles get marginalized and effectively removed in games with a modicum of optimization.

I'm starting to think that those Feats are problematic, and consider removing them from the game the next time I DM. The Feats that would get canned are Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter and also Shield Master so it doesn't fill the void.

What are your thoughts on this?

Let's break it down by fighting style.

Archery style gets the -5/+10. They only get a bonus attack if they make it with a hand crossbow and the primary attack is not one of the high damage ranged weapons. Cost to get both benefits is two feats.

GWF style gets the -5/+10. They only get the bonus attack if the first attack is either a critical hit or it reduces their opponent to 0 hp. Cost to get both benefits is one feat. They can also get a lower damage bonus attack every round at the cost of an additional feat.

TWF style does not get the -5/+10. They do get a bonus attack every round. The cost for this is nothing; it's inherent to the style.

Defense, dueling, and protection styles do not get the -5/+10. They can either get a bonus attack every round that can only be used to shove, or one that does lower damage. Cost for either option is one feat.

Edit: Defense style can get the same benefit from feats as any of the other styles. It is the most flexible of the fighting styles.

[Yakk]

Note that these two features "stack well", in that the +10 turns usually small damage attacks into decent damage attacks.

Which is part of the "problem".

[Longcat]

@Bladeyeoman: Thanks for the charts! What Proficiency bonus did you use for your numbers? It would seem like, as a greatsword user, you'll want to use GWM roughly half the time without advantage and almost two thirds of the time with advantage. The numbers are slightly higher for archers and polearm users as they have less base damage.

Which shows the root of the issues I have with those feats. In addition to their other benefits, which are far from trivial, they offer a "tradeoff" that is a good choice the majority of time. And it's ridiculously good with the lower damage Bonus Action attack. For melees, advantage can be created reliably enough through the use of Shove, which is a worthwhile investment if you have multiple melees.


It seems like a better answer to the problem would be to elevate up the combat styles that don't get options like that, instead of removing a huge amount of options. Your proposed fix would make many choices of weapon and combat style completely meaningless, overall reducing the amount of customization and concepts in the game.

The existence of those feats removes a huge amount of options as well, as they both invalidate weaker styles such as TWF as well as becoming feat taxes for players looking to optimize their damage output, effectively shoehorning them into GWF for melee.

Removing those feats does not invalidate any weapon or combat style. To the contrary, it prevents certain combat styles from being completely overshadowed.

GWF still deals the most damage for melees. The choice is now whether you wish to sacrifice some damage (2d6->1d10) for additional reach, rather than reliable Bonus Action attack.
S&B still offers the best defenses.
Archery is still highly accurate and deals good damage (and your only choice as a ranged martial character). The Hand Crossbow becomes a niche weapon, but Longbows stay good.
TWF now has the greatest number of attacks, as it should have in the first place. Good at dealing with hordes. Good damage for anyone who is not a Lvl 11+ Fighter.
Honorable mention: Monks. Now their damage is actually comparable to other styles, rather than being reduced to a Stunning Strike bot.


In order to elevate the weaker styles, I'd have to homebrew feats for them, and I dislike homebrew.


charger gives a bonus action attack.

Not an issue, as you trade in your regular attacks for it.


Getting rid of the good options doesn't make other styles better it just drags them down to the same level. What really needs to happen is that we get a good variety of options. That doesn't mean every weapon gets a PA option either but more things like Polearm master that give good unique benefits to a weapon or class of weapons

I agree, we need more options to bring things up to par. Until that happens, I'd rather ban the offenders than homebrew something.


"Optimal with respect to what"? In games that are all about racing to see who can do the most damage, as opposed to (say) optimizing to defeat the enemy with minimal resource expenditure (even if that makes it take an extra twelve seconds to kill the enemy), you'll see a definite preference for certain feats. Even there, the raw DPR advantage offered by GWM is often rather small, on the order of 20%. The big gain comes from combining GWM with tactics in interesting ways (e.g. Valor Bard Pushes the enemy prone and then Grapples him there, while the GWM fighters then come up and commences beating the prone enemy to death--the Valor Bard + GWM may increase the fighter's damage by 100%).

Accordingly, banning GWM/etc. from the game just makes it less interesting and almost forces players who are interested in tactics to switch to spellcasters instead of fighters.

Yes, teamwork and group optimization can make a big difference. One of our games features an Expertise Athletics character who prones people reliably with Cutting Words before the GWM Barbarian and PM+GWM Paladin deliver their payload. No one is debating whether GWM, SS or PM add interesting tactics or depth; it's about those feats encouraging a monotonous playstyle that is objectively the "best" style that makes others fairly obsolete, thereby reducing build variety. I've yet to see a single non-Rogue melee that didn't pack one of those feats in games I DM, and the one non-Rogue melee I've seen in action that didn't take one of those feats sucked harder than an industrial vacuum cleaner.

At the end of the day, I am running an RPG, not a tactical miniature combat game. I want players to have build diversity and not feel like they are being shoehorned into certain builds for fear of missing out. They shouldn't feel like they are forced to resort to "tactics", but rather portray the image of a fictional character as they originally envisioned.



TWF style does not get the -5/+10. They do get a bonus attack every round. The cost for this is nothing; it's inherent to the style.


If you're going to call out Hand Crossbows for having a low damage die, then it applies to TWF as well. Both use 1d6 weapons, unless TWF invests in a feat. Your examples also do not account for monks, who deal trivial damage compared to feat users due to lack of feat support.

[Strill]

If I recall, Kryx's analysis showed that -5/+10 was just as effective DPR-wise as +2 STR. The only thing that made Greatweapon Master overpowered was that you also get a bonus-action attack.

[JoeJ]

I agree, we need more options to bring things up to par. Until that happens, I'd rather ban the offenders than homebrew something.

If you ban them, how well do fighters do in combat compared to the spellcasting classes? Are they still the best at fighting?


If you're going to call out Hand Crossbows for having a low damage die, then it applies to TWF as well. Both use 1d6 weapons, unless TWF invests in a feat. Your examples also do not account for monks, who deal trivial damage compared to feat users due to lack of feat support.

I didn't call out hand crossbow for having a low damage die, I pointed out that you can't use it to make a bonus attack without giving up the higher damage missile weapons. It's relative, not absolute. I should also have pointed out that archery style doesn't give you a bonus attack every round unless you carry a bunch of loaded hand crossbows that you can drop after firing, because you still need a free hand to draw the bolt.

I didn't account for monks because I don't think that's a meaningful comparison. They're not supposed to be doing as much damage as fighters.

[Longcat]

If you ban them, how well do fighters do in combat compared to the spellcasting classes? Are they still the best at fighting?


If you play with the Sorcerer/Evoker Errata and hand out appropriate magic items at the expected level ranges then Martials are still the best at fighting. Rogues keep their Sneak Attack, Fighters keep their maneuvers, Paladins keep their smites and Barbarians keep their high resistances and Advantage generation. The latter three just aren't "highly encouraged" to take certain feats anymore.



I didn't call out hand crossbow for having a low damage die, I pointed out that you can't use it to make a bonus attack without giving up the higher damage missile weapons. It's relative, not absolute. I should also have pointed out that archery style doesn't give you a bonus attack every round unless you carry a bunch of loaded hand crossbows that you can drop after firing, because you still need a free hand to draw the bolt.


I'd like to point out that Crossbow Expert works perfectly fine with a single Hand Crossbow and a free offhand. It's not dual wielding.



I didn't account for monks because I don't think that's a meaningful comparison. They're not supposed to be doing as much damage as fighters.

The at-will damage of a Monk is one or two 1d8+Dex attacks and one or two 1d4+Dex attacks, with both eventually scaling to 1d10. For most games, the martial arts die will be in the 1d6 to 1d8 range. That's about on par with TWF, though the unarmed strikes lack proper item support. As a result, they are somewhat behind as long as the aforementioned feats are off the table, and greatly behind if the feats are available.

[JoeJ]

I'd like to point out that Crossbow Expert works perfectly fine with a single Hand Crossbow and a free offhand. It's not dual wielding.

Okay, so archery style gets both the -5/+10 and a bonus attack every round at the cost of two feats.


The at-will damage of a Monk is one or two 1d8+Dex attacks and one or two 1d4+Dex attacks, with both eventually scaling to 1d10. For most games, the martial arts die will be in the 1d6 to 1d8 range. That's about on par with TWF, though the unarmed strikes lack proper item support. As a result, they are somewhat behind as long as the aforementioned feats are off the table, and greatly behind if the feats are available.

I don't see that as a problem.

[Longcat]

Okay, so archery style gets both the -5/+10 and a bonus attack every round at the cost of two feats.

Exactly.


I don't see that as a problem.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

[JoeJ]

Have you taken into account that monks can benefit from Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?

It's your game, but I really don't see how you build diversity by taking away options.

[Longcat]

Have you taken into account that monks can benefit from Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?


That's not really a monk anymore though. They were clearly designed with being a melee martial artist in mind.


It's your game, but I really don't see how you build diversity by taking away options.

If a game has options a), b) and c), and all three of those were balanced by default but optional content existed that elevated options a) and b) to be superior to c), while c) receives no such options itself, then you have effectively eliminated option c) from the game for anyone who cares even remotely about optimization.

By removing the optional content for options a) and b), all three of them become viable, whereas while the optional content exists, only two choices are viable.

[JoeJ]

That's not really a monk anymore though. They were clearly designed with being a melee martial artist in mind.

And they're still a martial artist. Taking those feats doesn't reduce the monk's martial arts ability in the slightest.


If a game has options a), b) and c), and all three of those were balanced by default but optional content existed that elevated options a) and b) to be superior to c), while c) receives no such options itself, then you have effectively eliminated option c) from the game for anyone who cares even remotely about optimization.

By removing the optional content for options a) and b), all three of them become viable, whereas while the optional content exists, only two choices are viable.

For someone who claims not to be running a tactical wargame, you have a strange definition of "superior." Players who are not narrowly focused on doing the maximum possible damage at any cost aren't going to care if somebody else picked an option that does more than they do. For those who do want that, you haven't made all three options viable, you've made it so that none of them are.

[Longcat]

And they're still a martial artist. Taking those feats doesn't reduce the monk's martial arts ability in the slightest.

They are no longer melee, which for me, defeats the point of taking the monk class in the first place. Also, Monks are not even proficient in Hand Crossbows unless they multiclass or are a Drow.



For someone who claims not to be running a tactical wargame, you have a strange definition of "superior." Players who are not narrowly focused on doing the maximum possible damage at any cost aren't going to care if somebody else picked an option that does more than they do. For those who do want that, you haven't made all three options viable, you've made it so that none of them are.

And here's the reason why we disagree: You consider a feat supported fighting style to be the viability baseline, hence removing the feat makes it "unviable" in your opinion.
I consider the fighting style without feat to be the viability baseline. The feat is supposed to be an enhancement. And if those enhancements are not equally available, then it is my responsibility as the DM to ensure balance by either introducing homebrew/houserule options or by banning the offending feats. I choose to resort to the latter.

Also, I may not be running a tactical wargame, but both I and my players very much care about internal party balance as well as a wide range of viable character building options. The feats hinder that, which is why they get the axe.

[Kryx]

Kryx is on vacation right now. I'm currently crunching some numbers, but I thiiiiink that this is not useful in as many situations as you might think.
Based on the math that I have presented -5/+10 is the best to increase DPR for nearly every build that can take it. It's worth a full +2 stat score itself, not to mention the other half of the feat.

It is incredibly strong with advantage.

I removed it from my game as it makes options that can't take it quite subpar.

(On vacation mobile so I can't reply to everything or be detailed)

[Strill]

Based on the math that I have presented -5/+10 is the best to increase DPR for nearly every build that can take it. It's worth a full +2 stat score itself, not to mention the other half of the feat.

It is incredibly strong with advantage.

I removed it from my game as it makes options that can't take it quite subpar.

(On vacation mobile so I can't reply to everything or be detailed)

If it's worth a +2 stat bonus, then why not just split up Sharpshooter and Greatweapon Master into two feats each?

[Longcat]

If it's worth a +2 stat bonus, then why not just split up Sharpshooter and Greatweapon Master into two feats each?

I assume it is because stats eventually cap at 20, and the feat provides a further benefit that stacks on top.

[JoeJ]

They are no longer melee, which for me, defeats the point of taking the monk class in the first place. Also, Monks are not even proficient in Hand Crossbows unless they multiclass or are a Drow.

Zen archery is a thing. And any character can get proficiency with a feat, a 1-level dip in another class or, as you mentioned, a racial trait.


And here's the reason why we disagree: You consider a feat supported fighting style to be the viability baseline, hence removing the feat makes it "unviable" in your opinion.
I consider the fighting style without feat to be the viability baseline. The feat is supposed to be an enhancement. And if those enhancements are not equally available, then it is my responsibility as the DM to ensure balance by either introducing homebrew/houserule options or by banning the offending feats. I choose to resort to the latter.

Also, I may not be running a tactical wargame, but both I and my players very much care about internal party balance as well as a wide range of viable character building options. The feats hinder that, which is why they get the axe.

You should certainly do what makes the game the most fun for the players at your table. Personally, I would never take GWM because I prefer the image of a Dex-based TWF. I'd hate for GWM not to be there for somebody else, though.

Not being able to take Sharpshooter would be a blow, though, because I also enjoy playing Robin Hood type archers. Without the feat, I really don't see that character concept working.

[Malifice]

Are you also banning spells of over 5th level?

Or is it just the martials that get their toys taken away?

[Longcat]

Are you also banning spells of over 5th level?

Or is it just the martials that get their toys taken away?

That's a strawman, and you know it.

Feats are an optional rule, Spellcasting is not.

[Malifice]

That's a strawman, and you know it.

Feats are an optional rule, Spellcasting is not.

Are you saying I cant have a game without spells? That none of them are optional?

You seem to want to ban these feats for 'balance' reasons; what do you propose to ban to balance 17th level Wizards?

Let the martials have their toys man. They dont get many, and the ones they do get, you want to take away from them.

[Longcat]

Are you saying I cant have a game without spells? That none of them are optional?

You seem to want to ban these feats for 'balance' reasons; what do you propose to ban to balance 17th level Wizards?

Let the martials have their toys man. They dont get many, and the ones they do get, you want to take away from them.

The PHB explicitly lists Feats as optional rules, which your table may or may not use. Not allowing Feats is not a house rule; allowing them in the first place is using an optional rule.

I am banning the Feats for the sake of balance among the martials. Casters were not a consideration. You seem to assume that wizards are in need of balancing, yet fail to cite a reason why. Personally, outside of fringe cases such as Simulacrum (which I do not use as written), I do not consider Wizards unbalanced.

And don't worry about toys, my martial players will be provided plenty of them in the form of magic items. They do benefit considerably more from those than the casters do, after all.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Y'know, most classes can do neat things with their bonus action. That could be an attack, or a spell, or cunning action, or second wind, or some maneuvers, or various ki uses, etc. The fact that some of those bonus action uses are direct attacks that add to DPR and some are not does not indicate imbalance; it indicates a viable trade off. Wizards tend to do their best when they avoid DPR, as do many classes. Rogues who use their cunning action instead of, say, another crossbow shot, can end up being far more effective in a dynamic fight with more to do than just hit the enemy. And the main classes who don't have competing options for their bonus actions (most Fighters and Barbarians) need the love, at least IMO.

As far as the -5/+10 is concerned, I think the main flaw here is that +2 STR doesn't do much besides add to DPR. If it did more then there would be no issue with it giving as much DPR as +2 STR. Sharpshooter, for instance, still has to compete with the god stat. That said, were I in a house ruling mood, I would enhance rather than nerf the weapon-using folk as follows:

Everyone who is proficient in the weapon they're using can do something as simple as trade off accuracy for power, or (in the case of archery) make an equivalent of a called shot. They subtract their proficiency bonus to hit, and add double their proficiency bonus to damage. GWM and Sharpshooter become half feats that add to STR and DEX respectively, which makes them still quite good but hardly mandatory.

[Bladeyeoman]

@Bladeyeoman: Thanks for the charts! What Proficiency bonus did you use for your numbers? It would seem like, as a greatsword user, you'll want to use GWM roughly half the time without advantage and almost two thirds of the time with advantage. The numbers are slightly higher for archers and polearm users as they have less base damage.


I wanted a generally usable chart (rather than one for a specific ability/class/level combo), so proficiency and everything else is wrapped up into the "modified AC" at the bottom. That number is "What die roll do I need to hit". Which means how much of the chart is red versus white is irrelevant - you need to to figure out where most martial characters will fall on the chart. I don't have a DM guide, and am pretty new to this edition, so I'm really not sure. But it seems like many opponents end up falling around 10-15 for martials? At least at mid levels? 20 AC - 5 (ability modifier)-3?(proficiency) puts you at 12, and there are other misc ways to bring that down.


Based on the math that I have presented -5/+10 is the best to increase DPR for nearly every build that can take it. It's worth a full +2 stat score itself, not to mention the other half of the feat.

It is incredibly strong with advantage.


Okay, yeah so that generally martials fall into the "do use" parts of the charts in typical encounter situations. Thanks Kryx!




Everyone who is proficient in the weapon they're using can do something as simple as trade off accuracy for power, or (in the case of archery) make an equivalent of a called shot. They subtract their proficiency bonus to hit, and add double their proficiency bonus to damage. GWM and Sharpshooter become half feats that add to STR and DEX respectively, which makes them still quite good but hardly mandatory.

You should do whatever you want, but if you take a look at those charts I made (and/or think about the intuition of the underlying tradeoff), you'll notice that called shots don't help everyone equally - characters with weaker attacks benefit much more by using called shots. So giving everyone the called shot ability will be disproportionately useful to those who are balanced for combat but have low damage attacks. I'm thinking monks and TWFers. Now I guess those are both a little underpowered (?) so maybe this is a good thing. But it's definitely something that won't affect all martial classes equally.

[Kryx]

TWF (needs other fixes even if you get rid of -5/+10), monk, rogue, S&B classes, etc all suffer in comparison to a build that can use -5/+10. It is for this reason I do not allow it. I prefer more options that are balanced, not to limit them by making some options significantly superior.

Not to mention all ranged characters should use hand crossbows with -5/+10. They are then better than longbow and heavy crossbow whereas without they are nearly even.

@Malifice: I don't follow the mindset that "omg high levels, everything is broken!". I expect wizards, clerics, druids, sorcs, etc to be good and good options, but I don't agree with the mindset that balance should be abandoned at those levells. Example game breaking spells: wish, simulacrum, true polymorph, etc.

[Finieous]

In my opinion, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter and hand crossbow (with + Archery as the cherry on top) is the only combination that is really undesirable in a standard D&D 5E campaign. This opinion is almost entirely subjective rather than mathematical. First, I don't think the designers intended CE to grant a bonus action attack every round; second, I think it's dumb that hand crossbows are the deadliest ranged weapon; and third, I dislike the way it cheeses past the limitations on two-weapon fighting.

The great weapons, by contrast, don't bother me. Actually, I think it's perfectly appropriate that class and feat specialization in heavy two-handed weapons is the path to superior damage output in melee combat. And reducing melee damage -- and therefore prolonging the time it takes to whittle down monsters' huge hit point pools -- is not one of my priorities with 5e.

Solution: Hand crossbows don't exist. Alternate Solution: CE grants a bonus action attack with a pre-loaded crossbow, fire-and-drop.

[Kryx]

And what is your solution for classes that can't get -5/+10?

Do you make a feat for them?

[Finieous]

And what is your solution for classes that can't get -5/+10?

Do you make a feat for them?

What class is that? Are there class restrictions on Sharpshooter?

[Dralnu]

I dislike those feats (GWM, Polearm Master, Xbow, Sharpshooter). If I was worried about balance, I would either remove them or nerf them. They are the reason why other damage styles cannot compete save for AOE spells with enough targets. Dual wielding, monk damage, etc. would be a lot more competitive if those feats weren't around.

Also, monsters aren't designed to accomodate all that extra damage from feats. It quickly turns the CR guideline into a joke. At level 13 I've been sticking with Deadly*3 encounters just because of the damage output of my party.

In my games though, I haven't initiated any changes. I have 10 years of DM'ing experience and know how to compensate. We currently have a Thief in our group and he's so behind in damage it's sad, but instead of changing the rules I plan on giving him more and more magic items to boost him until he's no longer discouraged from participating in battle.

For the sake of less experienced DMs though? Just get rid of those feats.

[MeeposFire]

I always wondered if these feats should have the -5/+10 ability used as a bonus action.

For instance Kryx says the math has the power attack ability being worth a feat on its own and thus the combo is a bit too much but if both use a bonus action then they cannot combo with each other.

Same with sharpshooter and it makes non-hand crossbows better in comparison but hand crossbows still have the niche of having more attacks on full accuracy.

It will have unavoidable consequences of cutting off some other bonus action abilities but on the other hand I think that might be fair if that ability is so good.

[georgie_leech]

I always wondered if these feats should have the -5/+10 ability used as a bonus action.

For instance Kryx says the math has the power attack ability being worth a feat on its own and thus the combo is a bit too much but if both use a bonus action then they cannot combo with each other.

Same with sharpshooter and it makes non-hand crossbows better in comparison but hand crossbows still have the niche of having more attacks on full accuracy.

It will have unavoidable consequences of cutting off some other bonus action abilities but on the other hand I think that might be fair if that ability is so good.

Makes a bit of fluff sense as well, as you're taking careful aim at a difficult target/winding up for a wild swing, which would take a bit longer than a regular attack.

[MeeposFire]

Makes a bit of fluff sense as well, as you're taking careful aim at a difficult target/winding up for a wild swing, which would take a bit longer than a regular attack.

Good insight a nice bonus to be sure.

[Slipperychicken]

All of this makes me wish they instead bundled their power-attack/called-shot mechanic into the base combat rules. So many other games already do that, and it works just fine for them. Maybe we can make an optional rule for this and rework the "-5/+10 feats" to do something that isn't a straight damage buff.


A combatant doesn't need special training (or at least nothing beyond proficiency) to attempt a shot for vitals instead of center mass. And please don't try to counter with oozes or other creatures that "lack vital areas", because you know that sneak attacks and sharpshooter both already work on them, and 3rd edition thoroughly demonstrated why that distinction was bad for the game.


Having the "-5/+10" require an extra bonus action doesn't make sense either. If I go for a headshot (or a heartshot, or whatever), the act of attacking doesn't take any longer than gunning for center-mass. One can spend extra time aiming, but that is not a requirement to make such an attack. Perhaps a good rule might let an attacker spend one or two turns aiming, then take a power-attack on his next turn at a reduced penalty.

[Kryx]

-5/+10 doesn't require a bonus action.

And I agree - if you allow some kind of power attack it should be in the normal combat options (DMG variants) and available to everyone.

Though as I mentioned above it makes certain builds much stronger. Hand crossbows become the best option for instance.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Though as I mentioned above it makes certain builds much stronger. Hand crossbows become the best option for instance.Hand crossbows (and Polearms) are already the best options for damage. They merely remain so if you include -hit/+2xdamage as a basic option.

Mostly it bumps the weak options like TWF and unarmed, which is good.

[Longcat]

Requiring a Bonus Action for -5/+10 would still leave TWF and Unarmed in a bad shape, and ensuring TWF and Unarmed aren't getting massively outshined is the reason why I wanted -5/+10 and Bonus Attacks via Feats to be gone in the first place.

Making -5/+10 a generally available combat option while canning GWM, PM, SS, CE and SM is another viable approach, I guess.

[Kryx]

Hand crossbows (and Polearms) are already the best options for damage. They merely remain so if you include -hit/+2xdamage as a basic option.
Heavy Crossbow and Hand Crossbows are very very similar in DPR without -5/+10. Longbow lags behind a bit, but it doesn't require a feat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Heavy Crossbow and Hand Crossbows are very very similar in DPR without -5/+10. Longbow lags behind a bit, but it doesn't require a feat.So, the Longbow user should have +2 more Dex, at least before high levels, yes?

Somewhat related to this thread, I've been meaning to ask: Have you run numbers on a BM if you give him Sentinel instead of a stat boost? I don't think he'll have higher DPR than if that ASI was +2 STR (unless you modify the %OA numbers), but he would be able to save his trip attempts for when he connects on an OA (setting movement to 0, so the opponent can't stand up), and then get one more attack with advantage than he would if he tripped on his turn.

Another interesting thing to do would be to run some sensitivity analysis on the %OA number for all builds, since I imagine anything using PM will have a lot of DPR riding on it, especially at lower levels.

[SharkForce]

basically, to me at least, the problem with some fighting styles having greatly superior damage largely comes from the fact that certain classes don't do much other than dealing damage. i mean, yes, the class has *some* abilities that don't revolve around dealing damage, but their main contribution to a fight will come in the form of damage, and their main contributions outside of a fight will generally come from the basic stuff that any class has with little or no class supporting abilities (mostly skills).

so, for example, if you make a fighter, and you have an option to deal more damage... you're almost obligated to take that option. dealing damage is what you do. your useful skill set primarily revolves around stabbing/slicing/smashing things until they are dead. you're not there for your incredible scouting ability, or for your ability to solve problems, or for your ability to lie so convincingly that people begin to suspect their lie detection spells are accurate. you're not even really there to tank, because lets face it fighters don't have any compelling reasons to not kill them after the glass cannons are dead. you're there to hit things with weapons until they die. that's what your class does.

so having some styles that just straight up are better damage options basically means that fighters who use those styles are straight up better fighters. you can still have a reasonably effective fighter that doesn't use those styles. but by supporting one style and not others, you are punishing what should be an RP decision. the fighter that wants to use two-weapon fighting should be just as encouraged as the fighter that wants to use a greatsword or greatbow or glaive, and the fighter that wants to use a longsword and shield should be just as encouraged as any of the above as well.

[Coidzor]

If you ban them, how well do fighters do in combat compared to the spellcasting classes? Are they still the best at fighting?

Especially considering GREEN FLAME! Blade on the horizon. Though that definitely would leave Eldritch Knights in the running.


Edit: Defense style can get the same benefit from feats as any of the other styles. It is the most flexible of the fighting styles.

One-handing a quarterstaff with Polearm Mastery for 1d6 Attack action attacks and 1d4 Bonus Action attack? Plus hand crossbowing it up? I suppose they can certainly benefit from the bonus attack from GWM without wielding a heavy weapon. Am I missing anything there?


As far as the -5/+10 is concerned, I think the main flaw here is that +2 STR doesn't do much besides add to DPR. If it did more then there would be no issue with it giving as much DPR as +2 STR. Sharpshooter, for instance, still has to compete with the god stat. That said, were I in a house ruling mood, I would enhance rather than nerf the weapon-using folk as follows:

Everyone who is proficient in the weapon they're using can do something as simple as trade off accuracy for power, or (in the case of archery) make an equivalent of a called shot. They subtract their proficiency bonus to hit, and add double their proficiency bonus to damage. GWM and Sharpshooter become half feats that add to STR and DEX respectively, which makes them still quite good but hardly mandatory.

Hmm. :smallconfused: I like this idea. :smallbiggrin: Though I'd tweak the half feats to be STR or CON and DEX or CON respectively, just to be on the safe side.

I'd have probably proposed something more along the lines of allowing the penalty to hit to be anything up to their proficiency bonus rather than set at the proficiency bonus, though. :smallredface: Or maybe some of the additional options that Mutants and Masterminds added to the ring, like accurate attack and all-out attack. (http://www.d20herosrd.com/5-advantages) Rebalancing something like all-out attack for 5e would probably be more effort than it was worth, though.

Edit:

Doesn't this proposed change of getting rid of all of the feats that increase DPR at all(aside from Dual Wielder) mean that now TWF is undisputed king of mundane DPR?


In my opinion, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter and hand crossbow (with + Archery as the cherry on top) is the only combination that is really undesirable in a standard D&D 5E campaign. This opinion is almost entirely subjective rather than mathematical. First, I don't think the designers intended CE to grant a bonus action attack every round; second, I think it's dumb that hand crossbows are the deadliest ranged weapon; and third, I dislike the way it cheeses past the limitations on two-weapon fighting.

How is wielding a single hand crossbow cheesing past the limitations on two-weapon fighting? :smallconfused:

[djreynolds]

Does Sharp Shooter only work with bolts and arrows?

Could I throw darts and get sharp shooter bonus? Could I duel wield daggers and throw them with sharpshooter, if the free draw of duel wielder feat lets me and I have enough to throw?

[JackPhoenix]

It works with darts, but not with daggers, dart is a ranged weapon, dagger is a melee weapon with thrown attribute. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/

[djreynolds]

It works with darts, but not with daggers, dart is a ranged weapon, dagger is a melee weapon with thrown attribute. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/

Nothing like throwing darts for 10 points of extra damage, or using a blow gun. Too bad about daggers.

[KorvinStarmast]

Accordingly, banning GWM/etc. from the game just makes it less interesting and almost forces players who are interested in tactics to switch to spellcasters instead of fighters. DM's who punish players/parties from making the most of synergy need to have their tables boycotted.

The whole point of this game/hobby is teamwork to overcome an obstacle, quest, challenge, etcetera, by combining the talents of characters with differing talents.

"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts"

[Finieous]

How is wielding a single hand crossbow cheesing past the limitations on two-weapon fighting? :smallconfused:

You gain a bonus action attack, melee or ranged, with full ability bonus on damage, at the cost of one feat. With Sharpshooter, you can do -5/+10 on both attacks. Likewise, with Archery style, you gain the to-hit bonus on both attacks.

Meanwhile, with TWFing, it's melee only, no ability bonus on the bonus action attack, and no -5/+10. If you take the fighting style, you get the damage bonus that hand crossbows get just because, but still lack the to-hit bonus. I feel much the same about Polearm Master, but it's less egregious and there are at least real trade-offs: It's melee only, it requires a Str build, and it lacks the accuracy-enhancing fighting style to offset the power attack penalty.

And again, as I made clear, it's really subjective. I think hand crossbows in a D&D setting are pretty silly for anything but shooting squirrels, so it irritates me that (IMO) poor rules writing has transformed them into semiautomatic handguns with magazines the size of your backpack. There's no particular reason anyone else needs to share my opinion on this.

[Kryx]

So, the Longbow user should have +2 more Dex, at least before high levels, yes?
Longbow does have higher dex, but it's still slightly behind. Much more so at higher levels.


Have you run numbers on a BM if you give him Sentinel instead of a stat boost?
I've thought about using sentinel - especially for the builds that run out of offensive options for their ASIs. Though not all builds should focus offense. How I have them now allows those empty levels to be defensive like con.

I think it'd work pretty well. Very DM dependent though.



Another interesting thing to do would be to run some sensitivity analysis on the %OA number.
I'd love to have more feedback on OA. A lot of it is dm dependent. Though polearm provoke is going to happen no matter what, really. 40% assumes you use it 2 times in the typical 5 rounds encounter. That is where I'd estimate it to be and another dm agreed. (I've done 30 or 50 before, but 2/5 sounds right). Let me know if you do some analysis.



@Shark: melee still does a lot of damage without -5/+10. It just doesn't make options like rogue, monk, twf extremely subpar.
Not allowing it allows more viable options.
Besides a background allows a fighter to specialize in whatever skill he chooses. He can have a decent int, wis, or cha alongside his str/dex and con.

[Kryx]

You gain a bonus action attack, melee or ranged, with full ability bonus on damage, at the cost of one feat. With Sharpshooter, you can do -5/+10 on both attacks. Likewise, with Archery style, you gain the to-hit bonus on both attacks.
Well archery is meant to offset cover which in most cases averages out to 1.45.

I agree though. I treat hand crossbows as TWF for my games. That means a feat to reload and also the dual wieldee feat. Though my feats are all split into two so they can pick the reload part separately from the shoot at point blank part and the stat bonus to offhand separately fro. The defense.

[JoeJ]

One-handing a quarterstaff with Polearm Mastery for 1d6 Attack action attacks and 1d4 Bonus Action attack? Plus hand crossbowing it up?

Yes. Defense fighting style lets you do any of those, and get full benefit from the relevant feats.


I suppose they can certainly benefit from the bonus attack from GWM without wielding a heavy weapon. Am I missing anything there?

No, they benefit from the bonus attack from GWM by wielding a heavy weapon. What you're missing is that Defense style has no restrictions whatsoever on what you use to attack. Weapon, improvised weapon, unarmed strike, spell, whatever you like. The only requirement is that you wear armor.

[SharkForce]

@Shark: melee still does a lot of damage without -5/+10. It just doesn't make options like rogue, monk, twf extremely subpar.
Not allowing it allows more viable options.
Besides a background allows a fighter to specialize in whatever skill he chooses. He can have a decent int, wis, or cha alongside his str/dex and con.

the problem is not that they don't do damage. the problem is that if option A lets you do more damage, and option B doesn't, and your entire class revolves around dealing damage, it is punishing option B.

now, I have no problem if option B is, say, farting out poisonous clouds or something. but if option A is hitting you with an axe and option B is using a pair of shortswords, I'm not terribly happy about that. I think that both should be equally good options, and when one of them lets you do the same things except better, there is a problem with that.

[Kryx]

There will never be a balance with -5/+10. That's why I don't like it. Classes with easy accesss to advantage will get way more out of it, always.

I much prefer not having it so a bladelock, paladin, rogue, monk, twfer, etc can remain at their default difference from fighter/barbarian than the overly inflated difference with -5/+10.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've been having some free time lately to ponder various builds and running them through spreadsheets, as well as reading similar works from other users (shoutout to Kryx), and I can't help but notice how DPR is disproportionately topped by builds with access to two things:
-A Bonus Action attack and
-The ability to take -5 to hit for +10 to damage

Both of these are provided by Feats. Now, normally this wouldn't be a problem, but not all fighting styles get equal access to those options, and some of them do not even get anything to compensate for that, such as improved defenses. Those same fighting styles get marginalized and effectively removed in games with a modicum of optimization.

I'm starting to think that those Feats are problematic, and consider removing them from the game the next time I DM. The Feats that would get canned are Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter and also Shield Master so it doesn't fill the void.

What are your thoughts on this?

It's not a big deal, and sometimes using the -5/+10 is bad (awesome graphics on this by Bladeyeoman).


The only thing that made Greatweapon Master overpowered was that you also get a bonus-action attack.

If you crit/kill the target. It also has the opportunity cost of, you didn't get a stat bonus AND you can't use another bonus action. Practically every class has access to a bonus action it could be using.


As far as the -5/+10 is concerned, I think the main flaw here is that +2 STR doesn't do much besides add to DPR. If it did more then there would be no issue with it giving as much DPR as +2 STR. Sharpshooter, for instance, still has to compete with the god stat. That said, were I in a house ruling mood, I would enhance rather than nerf the weapon-using folk as follows:

Well, +2 str increases your athletic checks, which directly impacts almost all the combat contests. So that's kind of a big deal in that it can make the difference between someone having advantage on you and you have disadvantage on all attacks (grapple->shove prone). It also adds to Strength saving throws of which there are actually a substantial number from monsters.

[JoeJ]

I think a lot of people here are assuming that fighters will only take feats that synergize with their fighting style, which is itself sub-optimal. Fighters have proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, armor, and shields. They also get the most ASIs, even though they're extremely SAD. So any Strength based fighter would do well to pick up one or more of GWM, PM, or SM, regardless of their fighting style. Likewise, any Dexterity based fighter would be smart to grab SS and SM, again regardless of their fighting style.

[Longcat]

It's not a big deal, and sometimes using the -5/+10 is bad (awesome graphics on this by Bladeyeoman).


It's a huge deal when -5/+10 is a good tradeoff over 50% of the time even without advantage, especially if -5/+10 is not equally available. It creates a dominant strategy that invalidates a lot of other strategies, thereby limiting the number of viable options in the game.

[Strill]

If you crit/kill the target. It also has the opportunity cost of, you didn't get a stat bonus AND you can't use another bonus action. Practically every class has access to a bonus action it could be using.
My point is that -5/+10 gives you the same DPR increase as +2 STR.

[SharkForce]

I think a lot of people here are assuming that fighters will only take feats that synergize with their fighting style, which is itself sub-optimal. Fighters have proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, armor, and shields. They also get the most ASIs, even though they're extremely SAD. So any Strength based fighter would do well to pick up one or more of GWM, PM, or SM, regardless of their fighting style. Likewise, any Dexterity based fighter would be smart to grab SS and SM, again regardless of their fighting style.

no, it isn't suboptimal to get better at your primary fighting style. you have the ability to use all those weapons, but the majority of the time you will use the weapon style you chose in the first place.

just because you have shield proficiency and greatsword proficiency doesn't mean you're going to spend an equal amount of time wielding shields and greatswords. it definitely does not remotely come close to meaning that you're going to be compelled to do so in the slightest.

[JoeJ]

no, it isn't suboptimal to get better at your primary fighting style. you have the ability to use all those weapons, but the majority of the time you will use the weapon style you chose in the first place.

just because you have shield proficiency and greatsword proficiency doesn't mean you're going to spend an equal amount of time wielding shields and greatswords. it definitely does not remotely come close to meaning that you're going to be compelled to do so in the slightest.

It is indeed sub-optimal to not be able to adjust your fighting style to deal with a single powerful enemy or a large numbers of weaker ones, in close combat, or at long range, against foes that do lots of damage quickly or ones that slowly wear you down. A fighter should not depend on the DM only using enemies and tactics that they've "optimized" for. Why do you think the fighter class has all those ASI/feats anyway, if not to be able to fight effectively in more than one style?

The existence of feats that give -5/+10 to certain fighting styles in no way invalidates other choices because any fighter can benefit from those feats. If you're normally an S&B fighter and you come to a situation where you think that high damage is a better option than a high AC, it only takes 1 action (which you can probably take before combat, if you've got halfway decent recon) to doff your shield and go crazy with a greatsword and GWM. Equally, if you're a great weapon fighter and you're not sure you can survive the next fight, take that shield off your back and change to a one-handed weapon. Then use SM to knock them prone and go to town. The damage will be less, but you'll be contributing. Your dpr is 0 if you're dead!

If you're, say, a Dexterity based twf fighter, why wouldn't you have the Sharpshooter feat? You're going to be awesome at it, even without the +2 from Archery style, and you still don't give up any of your ability to wade into a sea of mooks and slice them up with two swords. And if you're a primary archer, why would you not also pick up a feat like Shield Master for those times when you're better off getting up close and personal with the enemy?

This isn't 3.5, where you have to specialize just to be effective. Fighters in 5e are versatile, at least where combat is concerned. If you don't take advantage of that, you're denying yourself one of the main strengths of the class.

[SharkForce]

generally speaking, the theoretical benefit to be gained from using two swords is largely negated by the fact that:

1) you can get a bonus action attack without using two swords.
2) most monsters have way too many HP for the ability to split your attacks up to matter

there might on super-rare occasions be a time when you want a shield, but i would not in a million years suggest grabbing shield expert just in case it's a good idea. you should take it if you expect to use it regularly.

as to having so many ASIs, there are severely diminishing returns for having anything more than 2 options with any investment at all (1 ranged, 1 melee... and even then with crossbow expert your ranged style may be your melee style), and the majority of the benefit comes from carrying around a bow with or without feats to support it if it is just a secondary option.

if you want more combat power from feats, don't specialize in a second weapon. pick feats like mobile or mageslayer or heavy armour mastery.

[Slipperychicken]

if you want more combat power from feats, don't specialize in a second weapon. pick feats like mobile or mageslayer or heavy armour mastery.

Seconding this. Your specialty (i.e. "use a specific weapon group to whack something within 5ft") is going to be useful almost all of the time. Just keep your BPS (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) damage types covered, be able to bypass resistance/immunity to nonmagical attacks, and have a ranged backup weapon. And have a good magic-user who can get you around the other stuff like flight, invisibility, and so on.

If your specialty has a sufficient damage die, a bonus attack, and a +5/-10 (or other source of bonus damage), there is very little reason to do anything else when your specialty is available. Maybe when you can't reach a foe, you might use a ranged attack. But aside from that, I'm just not seeing why you'd want to change.

[JoeJ]

If your specialty has a sufficient damage die, a bonus attack, and a +5/-10 (or other source of bonus damage), there is very little reason to do anything else when your specialty is available. Maybe when you can't reach a foe, you might use a ranged attack. But aside from that, I'm just not seeing why you'd want to change.

One big reason why is that the -5/+10 attacks require both hands, so you lose out on AC. But sometimes you're better off giving up some of your damage in order to use a shield, because you don't do any damage at all if you're dead. And whenever you want a shield for protection, Shield Master lets you also use it to make a bonus attack.

Another reason is you're alternating between fighting powerful individual enemies and fighting large numbers of weak ones. TWF, with no feat support at all, is every bit as good as GWM against an army of mooks, and better with the Dual Wielder feat because of the improved AC. Either way it beats Crossbow Master by not requiring any expenditure of resources.

Charger, Sentinal, Mage Slayer, Tavern Brawler, and the other martial feats are also fantastic choices. Honestly, the only reason I can think of for a fighter not to choose feats that make them more versatile in combat is that they're choosing feats that give them out of combat utility instead.

[Kane0]

In my games i changed the -5/+10 option with + half prof bonus damage on a hit. If a player doesnt like it they can choose to have +1 str/dex instead. I havn't had any issues yet.