Please rate Sharp-Shooting

[Caliban]

The Shield spell gives a +7 Cover bonus to AC.

Sharp Shooting would give you a +2 on attack rolls agains anyone with shield up, effectively reducing it to a +5 AC bonus.

That alone would make it worth it to me.

 

[Zad]

I have a 21st level archer playing in one of my games, and that +2 to hit may not make the difference on her first attack, but by the time you get to 4th and 5th, it can easily spell a hit or miss.

Granted but still consider this. At 16th level, my attack bonus on my third (fourth, via rapid shot) shot is +25. That's with self buffs only, no bless/prayer/recitation/etc.

So I need the die roll more for this shot. But is that +2 gonna matter? Sure, once in a while.

And there's the thing. If my opponent has cover, if I roll badly, then once in a while this feat will mean the difference between hitting and missing on my fourth attack only.

It's just too remote for me to want to tank a feat into. I'd rather have a +2 bonus to fort saves, which could mean my life vs a save-or-die spell.

The Shield spell gives a +7 Cover bonus to AC.

Sharp Shooting would give you a +2 on attack rolls agains anyone with shield up, effectively reducing it to a +5 AC bonus.

Odd question here. By the Sage ruling, the shield spell gives you a cover bonus to AC, as you have mentioned but not actual cover

The feat says "You gain a +2 bonus to your ranged attack rolls against targets with some degree of cover. "

So technically it doesn't work against the errata'd shield spell, but I think any sane DM would say that it would.

Just a wierdness.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Granted but still consider this. At 16th level, my attack bonus on my third (fourth, via rapid shot) shot is +25. That's with self buffs only, no bless/prayer/recitation/etc.

So I need the die roll more for this shot. But is that +2 gonna matter? Sure, once in a while.

And there's the thing. If my opponent has cover, if I roll badly, then once in a while this feat will mean the difference between hitting and missing on my fourth attack only.

It's just too remote for me to want to tank a feat into. I'd rather have a +2 bonus to fort saves, which could mean my life vs a save-or-die spell.

Fine, but your points apply equally well to +1 for Weapon Focus. For many characters +2 when they need it is much better than +1 when they don't.

This is a superior feat for Rangers or Elven Clerics. Much better than Weapon Focus.

I think you are too obsessed with the viewpoint of high level archer specialists. There is more to the game than life after 13th level.

Lower or middle level archers and other characters who want to boost a back up mode of fighting will find this feat a good value.

 

[The Souljourner]

Granted but still consider this. At 16th level, my attack bonus on my third (fourth, via rapid shot) shot is +25. That's with self buffs only, no bless/prayer/recitation/etc.

You have +37 to hit?! Good Lord!

Lemme see... let's assume +5 arrows and bow = +10

Elf, max dex 24 + 6 -> 30 = +10

16 BAB = +16

Weapon Focus = +1

+37.... ok I guess so. Damn. And that's not even including any inherent bonus you could get.

Still.. with those kinds of stats and items, you should be going up against some really kick@ss baddies, right? Like, take a mature adult red dragon CR 17 - AC 32, now assume mage armor - 36, haste at the beginning of the battle - 40, and a shield spell with its first partial action - 47. All of a sudden that first shot becomes less than a 50/50 shot. if you rule sharp shooting works against shield, you're doing better.

*shrug* Just sayin', if you're always hitting automatically with all but your last shot, your DM isn't trying hard enough

-Nate

 

[mkletch]

I played an archer-specialist (AA and OoBI) up through 21st level. I took Sharp-Shooting about half way through. It was excellent to ignore quarter cover and get a little edge against other amounts of cover. I found it to be, in the long run, a good feat selection, even though I originally took it only for flavor reasons (every archery feat I could get my hands on).

Whether or not it works against Shield depends on how you run Shield. Some have edited it so that it only gives the bonuses (+7 cover AC bonus, +3 cover Reflex save bonus), but not actual cover. If you do this, the Sharp-Shooting would not apply, since the target does not actually have cover.

If you have not edited it in this way, the target does have cover, is immune to many AoOs, and Sharp-Shooting would work. If you do not allow Shield to block AoOs, you are somewhere in between, and should make up your mind, one way or the other.

Edit: voted "good"

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

Granted but still consider this. At 16th level, my attack bonus on my third (fourth, via rapid shot) shot is +25. That's with self buffs only, no bless/prayer/recitation/etc.

So I need the die roll more for this shot. But is that +2 gonna matter? Sure, once in a while.

And there's the thing. If my opponent has cover, if I roll badly, then once in a while this feat will mean the difference between hitting and missing on my fourth attack only.

If you are 16th level and not fighting stuff with 35-40 AC, you are getting off easy. What are you doing, lining up orc children along a wall at 10 paces and blasting 'em?

A +2 bonus adds up over time. Sure, on any one roll, it is likely to not be a factor. But it will be maybe 10% of the time, maybe a little less. For a one-shot adventure, not a good feat choice. For a career/campaign duration character, better than lots of feats, if you want to specialize with the bow.

-Fletch!