Mythbusters for feats

[djreynolds]

We should try a Mythbusters style look at feats! I've tried savage attacker.

Think of a feat, that needs a confirmed or not.

[Sir cryosin]

Confirm? What are we confirming?

[DiceDiceBaby]

Confirm that they can happen in reality?

This will only be detrimental to the non-magic Feats (such as "Magic Initiate" or "Lucky" Feats, which, for obvious reasons, cannot be proven in the context of our reality), because it will serve to punish martial classes even more.

It's bad enough that we have to limit the imagination when it comes to physical feats of strength by rules like encumbrance and the bias against reality from verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief, but do we really have to disprove all the amazing things D&D characters should be able to do?

Go on, disprove "Sharpshooter" and "GWM", then, because there's already little incentive to picking martial classes as it is. In a game where using magic to change the taste of inorganic substances at will is perfectly acceptable, but the players still want to prove if hitting a target from ludicrous range with good cover is "realistic" or not just seems to me like another reason for us to not play non-magic classes.

[ClintACK]

I'm not sure the "simulation" <--> "abstraction" link is solid enough to even figure out what a disproof would look like.

Consider Sharpshooter -- flatly ignoring 3/4 cover seems insane.

I could argue it's implausible that an archer could hit a target hiding behind an arrow slit just as easily as hitting a man standing in an open field.

But is it? If the archer is so good that he's reliably hitting a much smaller target than the full man, does the additional target area make a difference?

*shrug*

We can test the plausibility of things like the sprinting speed of a wood elf monk 18/rogue 2 -- (35'+30')x3 == 195' in 6 seconds. That's 585' in 18 seconds -- 178 meters. Or 20.2 seconds for the 200 meter dash. Just about a second slower than Usain Bolt.

Conclusion: Olympic class pace, but plausible.

But how would you test the plausibility of "does +10 damage with a -5 to hit"???

[Cybren]

I'm pretty sure, based on context clues, that the purpose of the OP was to discuss whether or not the common evaluation of the mechanical utility of a feat is a myth or not, as was asserted in the previously mentioned thread.

[CaptainSarathai]

Based on the OP's other thread regarding Savage Attacker, I think what they're trying to accomplish is having people test these Feats in their games and really see if they are as good/bad as we generally believe them to be.

If it is anything like the other post, it won't go anywhere, because the OP and others tend to have a poor grasp of stats. So, for example, if we say that SharpShooter is equivalent to about 2ASIs' worth of increased damage on average, we'll get a small cluster of people fighting back about how "well, one time, this guy kept using the -5 and never hit a single target"

The fact is, the game has been out for years now, people have been chewing on these questions the whole time, the math is quite simple. Any variables are down to DMs and party composition - things we can't account for.

In the end, any feat is worth whatever you want it to be worth. A decent and cooperative DM will give you chances to use your feat. 5e is more balanced than any previous edition, so even something "great" isn't terribly far ahead of something "awful", and unless you're playing with a bunch of hardcore minmaxers, or talking to hardcore minmaxers here on the forums - you likely won't recognize a major difference in your game.

[Cybren]

In the end, any feat is worth whatever you want it to be worth. A decent and cooperative DM will give you chances to use your feat. 5e is more balanced than any previous edition, so even something "great" isn't terribly far ahead of something "awful", and unless you're playing with a bunch of hardcore minmaxers, or talking to hardcore minmaxers here on the forums - you likely won't recognize a major difference in your game.

While I agree with this 100%, there is a very vocal cohort that thinks anything dependent on DM adjudication or planning is fundamentally broken/unfair/made of poisonous lava

[MrStabby]

Things like savage attacker can be calculated in terms of extra damage on average. Where this is the case they don't really need testing - the probability based calculations will be more accurate than empirical results based on a finite sample.

On the other hand there are feats like mage slayer which are harder to quantify in the abstract. How much is advantage on saves worth? How much is the additional source of reaction attack worth? How much is disadvantage on Concentration saves worth? Then the problem is determining if peoples scenarios are typical.

To be honest, I think there is going to be a pretty narrow (or possibly non-existent) band of feats that cant be better treated mathematically but that are also going to have sufficiently robust empirical results that the results will have relevance in games outside of which they were tested in.

Good luck though.

[CaptainSarathai]

While I agree with this 100%, there is a very vocal cohort that thinks anything dependent on DM adjudication or planning is fundamentally broken/unfair/made of poisonous lava

Not really. It's a min/max response, but it's also a valid one, especially in situations like AL games. It's better to have a feat that works 100% of the time, rather than having to rely on the uncertainty of the DM's good graces. Any feat relying on adjudication is certainly weaker (except non-combat feats, which always require cooperation to use)