D&D 5E sharpshooter math meaning

[Redthistle]

One other consideration that goes to narrative: If the target is not incapacitated, it may move unexpectedly. Could be as innocent and difficult to prepare for as a sneeze that results in that vital spot suddenly being in a different place.

 

[Staffan]

Since atm I play a wood elf hunter ranger with sharpshooter feat I can tellyou something from my experience:

Sharpshooter only works well whne you got a cleric in your party who spends his concentration non a Bless spell. Otherwise it does not.

It depends on the target's AC, and what other mitigating things you have available. Against a low-AC target like most animals, it's a pretty good deal. Against high AC targets, like an armored knight, a hobgoblin, or a dragon, it's probably not.

(Math-wise, using Sharpshooter is a good choice if the number of possible d20 rolls that hit (e.g. if you hit on a 13+, that's 8 possible rolls) are higher than half your average damage+5 - so if you have an average damage of 9, it's a good idea to use it if you hit on an 11+)

If you have some sort of "insurance", i e an ability letting you improve your attack roll after seeing the die roll, using Sharpshooter becomes a much better deal. Common examples are the Precision maneuver, Bardic Inspiration, War God's Blessing, and, if your campaign uses them, Hero points.

Even with hunter giving me an additional +2 to hit with ranged weapons it really hurts without a bless spell. This feat definitely is balanced and no discussion about it being overpowered is justified,

Personally, I think the -5/+10 thing is balanced in itself. The feat as a whole might be overpowered, since it also negates cover and range penalties.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's too bad. I like narrative

If you like rules that make narrative sense, then 5E probably isn't the game for you.

 

[Blue]

Does anyone have a good explanation of sharpshooter math (-5/+10). I understand the idea that the extra damage is due to the more difficult shot hitting a more vulnerable area. * But why would there be a penalty to the the regular shot. For example If you are targeting a vulnerable area (say the heart or throat or eye), if you miss, there is still some likelihood that you would do some regular damage. Basically why does aiming for the bulls-eye create an increased miss chance for the target?

I think you're mixing narrative and mechanics.

Don't confuse hit or miss on the attack roll with a hit or miss in narrative. Armor raises your armor class - not because it lowers your chance to get hit, but because it lowers your chance for a meaningful hit. That's also why strength can add to your to hit roll even against an unarmored opponent - because it's ensuring a meaningful hit.

Most creatures protect their vulnerable points, from how man and beast fight to scales and armor. If you're aiming to get that knight in the eyeslit it's a split second between getting that perfect shot worth bonus damage above and beyond what you already do, and instead glancing off the well protected helm (remember, armor doesn't reduce damage, if it's effective it totally negates it).

But in reality there are many layers of abstractions. Armor class, hit points as luck, fatigue, karma, and other factors as well as actual wounds. With this much, 5e keeping the same mechanic for both it's melee and ranged precision attack feats is reasonable. If you want to add realism the whole path of do you know the vulnerabilities of various creatures you've never seen before and the like starts to rear it's head - this works and is simple.

 

[CapnZapp]

I really really recommend you search the forums.

This topic has been debated to death. Tldr version:

It's not broken (provides simplistic math as "proof"). It is broken, since it's the foundation of the most damage dealing minmaxer build chain in the game, and you failed to take that into account in your math.

That's not GWMs fault. Believe me, it is. In practical play, I don't care what building stones your character is using to get +40 extra damage each nova round, I just care about the fact that removing GWM (and CE+SS) makes the build impossible, something that isn't true about removing bless, or Stun, or precision manoeuvre, or Inspiration...

The end.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[dagger]

Its not broken, and it is broken. Both are opinion only, you choose.

 

[jaelis]

The truth is a lot more simple and a lot more sad:

Sharpshooter is merely s copycat of GWM but for ranged combat characters. It copies the mechanics because they are assumed to be already balanced. It ignores any real need to make sense narratively.

I don't think that's very fair. It's a game mechanic, sure. But in the context of the game's combat rules it makes narrative sense, as several people have described. You attempt a riskier shot, that is more damaging if it hits. You can fill in any number of narrative details, based on the situation:
- aim for the head or an unprotected limb
- overdraw your bow, or put extra muscle into your sling
- hold your shot for a moment when a vulnerability is most exposed, instead of taking your first chance

 

[Blue]

Its not broken, and it is broken. Both are opinion only, you choose.

and

It's not broken (provides simplistic math as "proof"). It is broken, since it's the foundation of the most damage dealing minmaxer build chain in the game, and you failed to take that into account in your math.

That's not GWMs fault. Believe me, it is. In practical play, I don't care what building stones your character is using to get +40 extra damage each nova round, I just care about the fact that removing GWM (and CE+SS) makes the build impossible, something that isn't true about removing bless, or Stun, or precision manoeuvre, or Inspiration...

The end.

The OP was asking about adding realism, not about balance. As a matter of fact, explicitly called out looking for realism over worrying game balance in his last line. Care to address that facet instead of threadcrapping to retread a tired discussion about balance that the OP didn't ask about?

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think that's very fair. It's a game mechanic, sure. But in the context of the game's combat rules it makes narrative sense, as several people have described. You attempt a riskier shot, that is more damaging if it hits. You can fill in any number of narrative details, based on the situation:
- aim for the head or an unprotected limb
- overdraw your bow, or put extra muscle into your sling
- hold your shot for a moment when a vulnerability is most exposed, instead of taking your first chance

Exactly. It's a trick shot at a difficult target; shooting at the head instead of the chest, shooting at a chink in the armor rather than an unarmored area, snapping off a shot in a hurry to take advantage of an opening, etc.

If there's a vital spot that isn't difficult to hit, then it's safe to assume everyone is targeting it with regular attacks.

 

[discosoc]

Stop thinking points of damage equal physical wounds, and it makes more sense. Sharpshooter just means you're capable of putting more offensive pressure on your opponent by targeting more difficult-to-hit areas. It's pointless trying to narrate that extra 10 points of damage (and extra 5 points of difficulty hitting) as anything more than a vague contribution towards more effective attacks.