Please rate Sharp-Shooting

[Gaiden]

With everything that this has been discussed on this thread I have to contradict my initial opinion - looks like this feat is much better than I thought. In fact, it looks like this feat is a must for any would be archer.

 

[The Souljourner]

Wow, someone actually changed their opinion on this board... is that a first?

Glad we could make^H^H^H^H help you see the light, Gaiden.

-The Souljourner

 

[Gaiden]

Hey Souljourner,

I wish people would concede when they are wrong more often - I obviously overlooked the fact that when an archer fires into melee its not just the -4 penalty they have to worry about but the cover that their friends provide to the enemy.

That happens ALL of the time. I simply have not played an archer yet and so had not had an opportunity to see it take affect often - my one character who used missle weapons, a ranger, always used them while scouting and typically dropped them in favor of melee weapons ASAP - not to mention, whenever an opponent had cover he always managed to roll a critical (yeah, a natural 20 - I am not kidding either - every single time - it was uncanny. I think my DM may have actually started having the enemies jump from behind cover into the open to prevent the auto hits when there was only an arrow slit of space to hit them with )

But yes, I have completely changed my opinion of the feat - I was just flat out wrong before.

 

[Zad]

Well just so nobody thinks the universe is about to end, I still think it's pretty useless.

To me, the best feats are useful over the life of the character. While I agree that the feat is good for the 3/3 rogue/fighter dealing with a +10 cover bonus, when that character is 7/10, the bonuses will be much higher, and the +10 won't be as bad to deal with. So while the feat might be better in the early levels, it will be nearly unused in the late levels. (By "unused" I mean it will rarely make the difference between a hit and a miss.)

It's not that I don't like the idea mind you. But +2 just isn't enough to matter in my opinion. I can have +1 in all situations by weapon focus, but in a more specialized case like cover I don't think +2 is worth it. If it were +3, sure then maybe.

The one point made that really hit home though was when your opponent has a shield spell. Now that made me stop and think. But I still don't see enough bang for the buck.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well just so nobody thinks the universe is about to end, I still think it's pretty useless.

To me, the best feats are useful over the life of the character. While I agree that the feat is good for the 3/3 rogue/fighter dealing with a +10 cover bonus, when that character is 7/10, the bonuses will be much higher, and the +10 won't be as bad to deal with. So while the feat might be better in the early levels, it will be nearly unused in the late levels. (By "unused" I mean it will rarely make the difference between a hit and a miss.)

It's not that I don't like the idea mind you. But +2 just isn't enough to matter in my opinion. I can have +1 in all situations by weapon focus, but in a more specialized case like cover I don't think +2 is worth it. If it were +3, sure then maybe.

The other side of the same coin is when the character is 7/10 the only time he will ever miss is when the target has cover. +1 all the time is inferior to +2 when you really need it, right?

I stick by my call that this is a solid Average feat. It really is just as good or better than Weapon Focus most of the time, except for the niggling detail of whether you intend to pick up Weapon Specialization. For a Ranger or Elven Cleric, this is a very reasonable feat to have, probably better than Weapon Focus because you will be shooting over heads a lot.

That said, I personally get excited by neither Weapon Focus nor Sharp-Shooting. They are boring incremental improvements. I like qualitative boosts than allow new tactics like Combat Reflexes, Spring Attack, Knockdown, Silent Spell, etc. Admittedly, sometimes a lot of quantity makes for quality, but that's another discussion...

 

[The Souljourner]

Zad - the thing is, at 17th level, monsters have higher AC, generally incrementally higher AC. So a +2 could still make the difference. And please don't forget about multiple attacks. At 17th level I'll have +16 BAB... that's 4 attacks... but that last one is at -15 to hit. Not so good.

This feat gives +10% chance of hitting in a *very* common circumstance (in my experience). I'd say sharp shooting is useful almost as often as mobility.

And you're comparing this feat to weapon focus... it's not like I'm replacing one with the other.. I have *both*. And PBS, and rapid shot, and next level weapon specialization.... I mean, the only other feat I really want to take is improved initiative. Far shot? Whatever.... I'd *kill* to just once be at further than a single range increment. Penalties be damned. Hasn't happened yet. Encounters just rarely take place at that great a distance. Maybe if we were to lay a trap... but the thing is, I'm so much better at 30' away when surprising someone...

So the long and the short of it is, the feat is good. If you're going for an archer type character, I think it's a must. Might be 5th or 6th on the list, but it's still a must.

And Ridley... I totally agree that feats that give more options are way more interesting. However, there just aren't that many when it comes to archery. Shot on the run is about it... and it's not even very useful. Most of the time 9/10ths cover works just as well, except you get a full attack.

-The Souljourner

 

[Zad]

And you're comparing this feat to weapon focus...

Weapon focus was a poor, but handy choice. Half of the "usefulness" of weapon focus is just because it's a prerequisite for other things. You need it whether you like it or not.

Far shot? Whatever.... I'd *kill* to just once be at further than a single range increment.

lol. I hear you. We use an easel-sized grid map generally for play, and the entire map (except maybe corner to corner) is under one range increment. Sometimes we go to a larger scale but it's not often, and the range penalties are usually not a worry.

I'm running an archer in one campaign. Ftr4/Sor4/AA8 (probably 9 this weekend).

I offer a quote from the Story Hour, detailing an encounter many levels ago in a snowy, icy mountain pass during a blizzard. (Rackhir is another archer in the party)

It was hard to see more through the sleet but after a moment things became clear. A giant (in this area, frost presumably) was pushing the boulder towards us. He was clearly intent on blocking us in, and using the rock as cover from us as he did so. His bearded face was hardly visible behind the massive rock.

Rackhir and I looked at this, and then looked at each other without a word. We each then looked back towards the giant. I simply said “Hmf” and he just nodded slightly, each of us sharing the same thought – this was going to be a tough shot.

[OOC: The giant had 9/10ths cover and had buffs we didn’t know about. He also had 10% miss chance concealment from the sleet. Rackhir and I nodded approvingly at all of this, since it was going to be a tough shot to make – tougher than any shot we’d tried since the Sunless Citadel. Rackhir landed a critical with his new keen acid burst bow, and we did something like 70 or so points in that one volley. Unhappy giant.]

My point here is this: This was a good AC giant, with buffs, with 9/10th cover. And we still plugged him pretty good. Yes a couple shots missed, but this was the toughest shot probably in the campaign and we still made him a bloody mess.

At my current level, I just don't miss very often. Cover, size, etc. a specialist archer can deal with this just on bonuses alone.

Maybe in thinking about it, I'm realizing there's an unwritten emphasis.

I still think it's useless.

The key maybe is I. I don't see it being worth a feat. Doubly so when I'm staring at uncanny accuracy. But if you were a part time archer, then sure this could be a useful thing. However I expect that most part time archers are going to want to spend their feats elsewhere.

Great discussion tho.

 

[The Souljourner]

I guess the difference is really made in how often you miss due to cover. I'll grant you, I haven't played a high level archer, so I'll take your experience into consideration.

For me, in the campaign I'm in, it's worth it. I don't think we'll get much above 12th level, at at that point the extra +2 to hit those hard shots will be worth it. Since I'm sure we won't make epic levels, I think it's worth it.

However, I totally agree that if I was intending to go epic I'd never take it. I hate feats that become useless.

So I guess it really depends on the campaign. If you know you're going to epic and are going to take that feat, then sharp shooting is useless. If you're going to high levels, but not epic... it's ok, but only if you have spare feats. But if you're staying mostly 12 and under, I think it's pretty damn good.

And yeah, I guess the key word here is I. Nice discussing with ya, Zad (and everyone else), you made a lot of good points.

-The Souljourner

 

[Seule]

Remember, Sword and Fist (Sharpshooting) and the ELH (Uncanny Accuracy) do not reference each other. The obvious thing to do if you have both is to change the prereqs for Uncanny Accuracy, as Souljourner said. It just makes sense. WoTC may be restricted from doing that by their non-codependant supplement requirements, but we are not.
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.

--Seule

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm in the not so good, not useless though area a 3-4 I guess. 1 I'm like Ridley's Cohort in that feats that jsut give me a +to hit or whatever bore me, I want my feats to give me something new like spring attack, all of the metamagic feats etc. 2 +2 to hit sometimes just isn't worth it in my mind. Yes I'd rather jsut have +1 to hit all the time, one i think +1 to hit all the time is just flat out better, and 2 I don't have to think about it I just always have a+x to hit.

If this feat halved a cover bonus i might like it, but as is it's just so-so at best.