D&D 5E Homebrew modification of Sharpshooter: reasonably within line?

[Shiroiken]

In all honesty the most broken part of sharpshooter is not the extra damage bit, it's that:
1) You can combine the part about ignoring cover WITH the fighting style (it's what makes the damage bit too strong)
2) You can combine all the elements of the feat, i.e. a 4th level archer can fire at a castle guard hiding behind an arrow slit of a castle tower (which normally has +5 AC) from 300ft away with NO penalty, except for a -3 (assuming they have the archery fighting style) for the 10 extra damage. It's really only this fringe case that is absurd.

In the past I've ruled the following:
1) You pick ONE of the options each time you fire an arrow, i.e. ignoring cover OR ignoring the range penalty OR doing the extra damage. Not all three.
1.a) The other option here is ruling that Archery Fighting Style instead "Ignores half cover with ranged attacks". It's the reason why the fighting style is +2 to attach as it's intended to counter the +2 cover bonus for firing into melee regularly and frankly is what the fighting style SHOULD have been in the first place. It also means the feat no longer stacks to reduce the penalty.

Agreed. My solution was simpler, but just as effective. It doubles the short range and reduces the cover bonus by 2. So while a sharpshooter could make a 300 ft shot with a longbow against a target behind an arrowslit, they'd have -3 before modifiers (fighting style would reduce this to -1, but extra damage would make it -6). Just as with Great Weapon Master, I don't have an issue with the -5/+10, I just wish there were more fighting styles that could get abilities on par with it (Shield Master is iffy, Two Weapon Master sucks, and there's no Dueling Master)

 

[Redwizard007]

Agreed. My solution was simpler, but just as effective. It doubles the short range and reduces the cover bonus by 2. So while a sharpshooter could make a 300 ft shot with a longbow against a target behind an arrowslit, they'd have -3 before modifiers (fighting style would reduce this to -1, but extra damage would make it -6). Just as with Great Weapon Master, I don't have an issue with the -5/+10, I just wish there were more fighting styles that could get abilities on par with it (Shield Master is iffy, Two Weapon Master sucks, and there's no Dueling Master)

I sort of see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't want to see this level of damage for every style. Frankly, I'm not a fan of it being part of the ranged tree at all, but I do like it for 2H. I'd be more comfortable with giving each style their own shtick. Give S&B an option where they trade damage for AC. Let 2W gain a bonus on damage (and take an AC penalty?) if they hit with both weapons. Dueling should give a free strike as a reaction. Ranged already has the advantage of distance. That alone is equal to the +10 damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

SS is not overpowered. Compare truthfully with a +2 dex ASI !

+2 DEX ASI means +1 AC ! +1 DEX save ! +1 to hit with DEX ! +1 to damage with DEX = all ranged and all finesse! +1 to several DEX based skills!
And all of that is active all the time and in a multitude of situations.

SS cover ignore only applies if there is someone hiding behind partial cover, and it is not absurd a sniper takes someone out through an arrow slit sized opening, things like these are absolutely existing IRL.
But as said it is contextual, you need the "enemy takes cover"- situation

SS range ignore same. SS confirmed kills IRL are 1-2 miles away! But in game as before you need the appropriate situation .


SS -5/+10 does what it does. Again highly situational unless you do not roll the to hit? It works quite reliable against mobs up to AC 12. With advantage it works reliable up to AC15 or so. Beyond that it is better to leave it out, unless you got some +2 and up weapon or are of high level.

E.G: Hunter ranger, archerstyle, +1 bow, level 6 , DEX 16: Ok you got that +9 to hit, but with the -5 it is only +4. so take a mob with AC18. You need to roll a 14+ on a d20 (35% chance to hit) to hit. With the usual power build (hunters mark, colossus slayer), you want to make sure the mob gets hit in the first of your two attacks, so you can get your colossus slayer extra 1d8 (which requires the mob to be injured to be applied once per round) to kick in from round 1, so that is of course also a reason, why you also want your second attack in the first round to hit.
So if you botch it, not only you lose one or both attacks, but also 1d8 from colossus.

Same ranger but DEX 18. Same opponent. He got +10 to hit. Versus the AC 18 mob he only needs to roll an 8 or higher! Which is a 65% chance, so almost double the chance versus a heavy armored mob. Not only does he get his 1st round burst working in double the cases, especially if the DM (like he should) does not instantly communicate the mobs AC, but also his survivability is far better, because of the higher DEX stat,

I think I've said this before but Rangers make some of the worst candidates for SS. If you want to see how stupid the feat gets you look at a battlemaster fighter or you look at a character with additional accuracy buffs such as bless and advantage.

 

[Coroc]

I think I've said this before but Rangers make some of the worst candidates for SS. If you want to see how stupid the feat gets you look at a battlemaster fighter or you look at a character with additional accuracy buffs such as bless and advantage.

bless and advantage are situational. The battlemaster can dish out some, but he cannot cast cure wounds, nor can he evade, maybe he can stealth a bit if des build. I outdamage anyone in my group including a rage dwarf barbarian and a champion fighter with my hunter ranger. If i hit that is. Bless only is an option if the cleric decides not to use spirit guardians instead.
Higher des especially for a squishy char like ranger or rogue is a sure way to increase survival.
all those ss/gwm is overpowered threads always have the flaw, that either they do not look at to hit chances at all, or seem to have an easy explanation why ther has to be a bless active all the time or getting advantage is a thing to be almost guaranteed.
Maybe its the other way and some enemy gets a disadvantage on you?
even if they miraculously take all above into account, they tend to forget about high AC mobs or that dex asi is very powerful always on general buff, not contextual, not dependent on some buff or advantage.

 

[FrogReaver]

bless and advantage are situational. The battlemaster can dish out some, but he cannot cast cure wounds, nor can he evade, maybe he can stealth a bit if des build. I outdamage anyone in my group including a rage dwarf barbarian and a champion fighter with my hunter ranger. If i hit that is. Bless only is an option if the cleric decides not to use spirit guardians instead.
Higher des especially for a squishy char like ranger or rogue is a sure way to increase survival.
all those ss/gwm is overpowered threads always have the flaw, that either they do not look at to hit chances at all, or seem to have an easy explanation why ther has to be a bless active all the time or getting advantage is a thing to be almost guaranteed.
Maybe its the other way and some enemy gets a disadvantage on you?
even if they miraculously take all above into account, they tend to forget about high AC mobs or that dex asi is very powerful always on general buff, not contextual, not dependent on some buff or advantage.

Politely, the analysis has been done and you are wrong.

if one was saying SS isn’t that good for non-battlemasters I would agree. But the gulf between the SS battlemaster and the hunter is pretty large.

 

[Coroc]

Politely, the analysis has been done and you are wrong.

if one was saying SS isn’t that good for non-battlemasters I would agree. But the gulf between the SS battlemaster and the hunter is pretty large.

battlemaster has some nova skills with superiority dice, but he can do his tricks only so long. A hunter ranger does not lose hunters mark as long as he can concentrate, and that is eventually longer than a cleric keeps up some needed buff. True he gets 3 and 4 attacks, but that is on high level.
a ranger gets cordon of arrows and hide in plain sight and stoneskin, so what now?
every dm worth his salt has easy game if he wants to end a buff, dispel, true sight vs stealth, enemy cleric casting curse etc.
a good ranger has some points in wisdom also, he is very likely to better resist an enemy charm or control spell than your battlemaster.
all the examples to prove some gross unbalance of the +10 feats can be countered somehow.
i tell you what i consider much more game breaking than one if these feats: Easy access to fly and teleport skills at level 5 e.g.
i also tell you when i would not allow ss gwm: In a darksun campaign were AC is often very bad. But then again i would not allow feats in darksun anyway, because resilience constitution is a game changer there.
in some standard campaign no matter if powergamer builds or average, i do not see any problems arising from that.
high AC of PCs can be much more troubesome e.g. And no one complains about that ever.
to sum it up, the ops replacement for ss is also fine imho.

 

[FrogReaver]

battlemaster has some nova skills with superiority dice, but he can do his tricks only so long. A hunter ranger does not lose hunters mark as long as he can concentrate, and that is eventually longer than a cleric keeps up some needed buff. True he gets 3 and 4 attacks, but that is on high level.
a ranger gets cordon of arrows and hide in plain sight and stoneskin, so what now?
every dm worth his salt has easy game if he wants to end a buff, dispel, true sight vs stealth, enemy cleric casting curse etc.
a good ranger has some points in wisdom also, he is very likely to better resist an enemy charm or control spell than your battlemaster.
all the examples to prove some gross unbalance of the +10 feats can be countered somehow.
i tell you what i consider much more game breaking than one if these feats: Easy access to fly and teleport skills at level 5 e.g.
i also tell you when i would not allow ss gwm: In a darksun campaign were AC is often very bad. But then again i would not allow feats in darksun anyway, because resilience constitution is a game changer there.
in some standard campaign no matter if powergamer builds or average, i do not see any problems arising from that.
high AC of PCs can be much more troubesome e.g. And no one complains about that ever.
to sum it up, the ops replacement for ss is also fine imho.

concentration can be broken really easily. Hunters have very limited spell slots. It’s easy to cherry pick points that are only against battlemasters while ignoring those that impact rangers.

 

[NotAYakk]

Suppose you are using a 1d6 weapon with +4 attribute bonus. This is 7.5 damage on average.

Your choice is +2 dex (+1 to hit +1 to damage) or -5/+10.

Your enemy has 20 AC and you have a +4 proficiency bonus.

+2 dex situation: hit on an 11+ for 8.5 damage, or 4.425 damage per attack on average.
-5/+10 situation: hit on a 17+ for 17.5 damage, or 3.675 damage per attack on average, or a 12+ for 7.5 damage 3.55 damage per attack.

Delta: 0.75 damage per attack on the +2 Dex choice.

Each point of +ATK or -AC gives the dex build 0.425 damage, and the SS build 0.875 damage, or shrinks/grows the gap by 0.45.

Note that SS can turn off their -5/+10 at higher AC, but by that point the +1 to hit of Dex choice has a larger percent impact.

The real importance of SS is that it is another boost that is similar in scale to +2 Dex, and that at higher levels AC doesn't keep on inflating, so it gets better, and if you can pull off advantage the -5 penalty becomes much smaller.

Dex competes with +1 initiative +1 AC +1 dex save vs ignore cover and longer range.

 

[Shiroiken]

I sort of see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't want to see this level of damage for every style. Frankly, I'm not a fan of it being part of the ranged tree at all, but I do like it for 2H. I'd be more comfortable with giving each style their own shtick. Give S&B an option where they trade damage for AC. Let 2W gain a bonus on damage (and take an AC penalty?) if they hit with both weapons. Dueling should give a free strike as a reaction. Ranged already has the advantage of distance. That alone is equal to the +10 damage.

I totally agree that SS shouldn't have had the same ability, as two handed weapons traditionally should be big damage dealers, while archery has the benefit of range. I think a better option would have been to allow a bonus action to aim, granting advantage to (1 or more, depending on balance) attacks. This would make SS a better option for Rogues, who currently don't want to use the -5/+10, since they don't want to miss out on Sneak Attack.

 

[Al2O3]

Suppose you are using a 1d6 weapon with +4 attribute bonus. This is 7.5 damage on average.

Your choice is +2 dex (+1 to hit +1 to damage) or -5/+10.

Your enemy has 20 AC and you have a +4 proficiency bonus.

+2 dex situation: hit on an 11+ for 8.5 damage, or 4.425 damage per attack on average.
-5/+10 situation: hit on a 17+ for 17.5 damage, or 3.675 damage per attack on average, or a 12+ for 7.5 damage 3.55 damage per attack.

Delta: 0.75 damage per attack on the +2 Dex choice.

Each point of +ATK or -AC gives the dex build 0.425 damage, and the SS build 0.875 damage, or shrinks/grows the gap by 0.45.

Note that SS can turn off their -5/+10 at higher AC, but by that point the +1 to hit of Dex choice has a larger percent impact.

The real importance of SS is that it is another boost that is similar in scale to +2 Dex, and that at higher levels AC doesn't keep on inflating, so it gets better, and if you can pull off advantage the -5 penalty becomes much smaller.

Dex competes with +1 initiative +1 AC +1 dex save vs ignore cover and longer range.

Good points!
Now, with my suggested feat I will still end up with 20 Dex at level 8 for the specific character the feat was designed for. The comparison of opportunity cost for the specific character is:
+2 Str (12 instead of 10)
vs
Able to attack at 120 ft without disadvantage instead of 30 ft, and ignores partial cover.

Maybe that is what I should have asked about in the first place.

I'm happy to keep reading about pros and cons of solutions to 300 ft range snipers or archery fighting style, but the original question has been answered enough to make me satisfied.