D&D 5E Precision Attack + SS + CBE is like +2d6 sword

[Iry]

Fighters supposedly give up out of combat utility to be ‘good at fighting’ and you would punish them for being the best as the one thing they can do well? A sniper is supposed to take out target at a distance afterall.

1) There is no punishment happening here.
2) The OP is using a Fighter vs Fighter comparison. Other classes are being discussed, but the core comparison is two Fighters.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I say what I always say in the discussion regarding Sharpshooter. My house rules are to a) make the Range Fighting style change to "ignores half cover and treats three-quarters cover as half cover" and b) make any sharpshooter pick ONE of the bullet options with each arrow/bolt they fire. It keeps the absurd stacking and penalty reduction between the two that GWM doesn't get, and helps prevent absurd moments like someone firing through a castle arrow slit from three hundred feet away outside the castle with no penalty with the force of a railgun. Despite these nerfs I still have players commonly take the feat and the fighting style with zero regrets in my games.

We also run a house rule with both it and GWM that rules the damage option as -proficiency to attack/+2× proficiency to damage. I'm aware that this is a "buff" in a statistical sense, but we've tested it this way in over 7 campaigns with like 15 characters and, and most of our table has agreed it feels better for us that way. We still see players opt not to use the damage buff on every swing, as one would expect with the feats unchanged.

 

[FrogReaver]

honestly, what else do you want out of a ranged Fighter beside damage?

Fighters supposedly give up out of combat utility to be ‘good at fighting’ and you would punish them for being the best as the one thing they can do well? A sniper is supposed to take out target at a distance afterall.

I think the real problem is melee fighters aren’t good enough at control to be as good as the ranged fighters are at damage.

1. I Believe quantifying how strong those feat combos are in terms of magic weapons on a featless character is a very useful way to look at those feats.
2. What we do with that knowledge is still up in the air.

I've said multiple times now that there is an argument that weapon based characters (especially fighters) need all the love they can get on damage to match up with casters later. I personally find that argument somewhat persuasive. That said, I think it's worth questioning whether the equivalent of a +2d6 weapon at level 4+ is maybe a bit too much love.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don’t think y’all are getting this.

at level 4:
it requires a +2d6 weapon for a sword and shield fighter with the duelist style, also using precision attack and having 18 dex/str to do comparable damage to the fighter with 1 hand crossbow with 16 dex, archery style, SS, XBE using precision attack

this stays the same all the way up through at least level 11 (I didn’t check beyond that).

*note this includes both PCs raising their primary stat as appropriate on the remaining levels.

Yeah but by not having a shield they are taking a -2 AC penalty, possibly -3 if the sword and shield fighter is dex-based.

That and they are a hand crossbow user, mocked by children.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah but by not having a shield they are taking a -2 AC penalty, possibly -3 if the sword and shield fighter is dex-based.

I think that the idea is that the additional safety in engaging enemies from a distance (where most creatures have less powerful or no attacks) is equivalent to the additional defence from the shield.

That and they are a hand crossbow user, mocked by children.

Yeah. D&D hand crossbows are a rather silly idea, particularly the 5e iteration of them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that the idea is that the additional safety in engaging enemies from a distance (where most creatures have less powerful or no attacks) is equivalent to the additional defence from the shield.

One caveat, it's not just about your personal defense. It's also that you are going to be able to have some enemies attack you and your higher AC over your lower AC teammates. I think overall there is a decent argument that the benefits of being in melee with a higher AC and OA's is going to be comparable to doing the same damage at range.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The other drawback if you are using any kind of random DMG magic item distribution is you are tied to one specific and rare weapon. So if you come up against anything immune to non-magic weapons you are likely to find yourself doing zero damage.

In which case even a +1 sword is way better than all your feats and fancy manoeuvres.

 

[Coroc]

Ability score improvements have ridiculously diminishing returns, once your prime stat is at 20. That's why feats break the math. The power of a feat is nominally balanced against +2 in your prime stat, but the opportunity cost is just +2 to a non-prime stat...

...assuming there even exists any feat for your concept. If you're playing a character concept that doesn't have a supporting feat on par with +2 to your prime stat, then you just fall behind, because everyone else is walking around with an effective 24 Dexterity and you're capped it 20. It's just awful.

Unless you fail that save to get rid of exhaustion over and over again, or your dominated / held once more because your will save is so low - all despite your 20 in STR.

Ability scores are considered so weak because people always assume the only challenge the DM has to offer is to increase the HP at the bags of HP I nthe parties way.

When your max damage output character is charmed, and starts to obliterate the party, then you will hear the other players whine about these "imba" feats.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless you fail that save to get rid of exhaustion over and over again, or your dominated / held once more because your will save is so low - all despite your 20 in STR.

Improving your Wisdom by +2 will only matter one time in twenty, and it's highly unlikely that you'll be the target of domination twenty times over the course of a campaign after the point where you might seriously consider improving your Wisdom (i.e. after you reach 20 in your primary stat).

That example does a good job of highlighting the strong diminishing returns that I'd mentioned. Your primary ability score, and one of a small number of feats, are something that you can use every round of every combat ever, which is why they have such a disproportionate effect. For a bonus to Wisdom checks to be even remotely in the same league, given how few checks you make with it, the bonus would have to be auto-success; but even auto-success on Wisdom checks wouldn't be remotely as strong as +2 to a stat that you use every round of every combat ever. The game simply isn't set up for it.

 

[Iry]

Fun Fact. The third option of Sharpshooter works with Magic Stone when fired from a sling. So does Archery Fighting Style. It's not the most efficient way to attack since you have to spend bonus actions to create ammo, but you can smack people in the head with +10 damage rocks.

Warlock gives you Charisma on Magic Stone.
Druid gives you Wisdom on Magic Stone.
Artificer gives you Intelligence on Magic Stone.