D&D 5E sharpshooter math meaning

[The Crimson Binome]

The introduction of the sharpshooter feat says this: You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible.

None of the sharpshooter benefits represent the underlined portion very well. Least of all the -5/+10 benefit.

If that option is meant to represent a called shot to the eye, or whatever, then the underlined part is perfectly true: You can make a shot that would be impossible for anyone else, because they don't have the option of making a called shot unless they have the feat.

 

[Irda Ranger]

My narrative explanation is thus:

The areas of your body that are most vulnerable are also the most well defended. You're very protective of your face and your vital organs.

A normal shot goes for a limb, because legs and arms are big enough to serve as targets but aren't as heavily armored as the torso or head. The sharpshooter is either trying to hit the upper chest armor perfectly dead on (so it pierces the armor instead of being deflected away) or trying to find a gap in a visor or neck guard. With shots like that there's no such thing as a partial hit; you either shoot him right in the face or your shot is deflected by the armor. It's a binary result that way.

Even for unarmored folks you're a lot of more conscious of ducking when it's your head that's getting shot at than your arm.

Anyway, that's good enough for me.

 

[Redthistle]

Even for unarmored folks you're a lot of more conscious of ducking when it's your head that's getting shot at than your arm.

Still leaves me wondering about my innate proficiency for ducking my face into the flight path of an oncoming Frisbee.

 

[Saeviomagy]

What's the goal here? Is it to have D&D combat make sense, and then have sharpshooter make sense inside that framework? Or is it that numbers look like other numbers and we want to know exactly what these numbers are supposed to be?

I think his point is to try to narrate what sharpshooter is doing. Which is pretty much impossible because it was clearly designed as "mechanics first".

 

[MechaPilot]

I think his point is to try to narrate what sharpshooter is doing. Which is pretty much impossible because it was clearly designed as "mechanics first".

That would depend on if you're using the actual definition of impossible. Because if you are, then no, it's not; not by hardly any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That would depend on if you're using the actual definition of impossible. Because if you are, then no, it's not; not by hardly any stretch of the imagination.

I think he's more talking about "why is it easier to hit a guy in cover than a guy that's prone/a small target/a sensitive bit of a large target" or "why is it easier to hit a guy at range, but short range targets don't get easier to hit" or "why does taking a penalty to hit deplete my opponents stock of hitpoints more, when hitpoints are a catch-all representation of combat disadvantage, minor and major injuries".

Does the effect of the feat match the description? Sure - there are impossible shots that the feat makes possible. Does that matter to narration? No. Saying "you make an impossible shot" isn't particularly useful for narration, and it would be hard from that description to identify which mechanical benefit of the feat is being used.

Compare with, say, describing the effect of each part of great weapon master.

 

[MechaPilot]

. . . "why does taking a penalty to hit deplete my opponents stock of hitpoints more, when hitpoints are a catch-all representation of combat disadvantage, minor and major injuries".

That has been repeatedly explained in ways that make narrative sense.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That has been repeatedly explained in ways that make narrative sense.

None of which are particularly satisfying, and all of which rely on the very narrow "shooting a humanoid in the head" scenario.

 

[MechaPilot]

None of which are particularly satisfying, and all of which rely on the very narrow "shooting a humanoid in the head" scenario.

No, all of them do not rely on the narrative of shooting a humanoid in the head. Some do, but certainly not all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That has been repeatedly explained in ways that make narrative sense.

I missed it: what's the narrative that repeatedly works for Sharpshooter's -5/+10?