Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7233412" data-attributes="member: 71699">I agree with you there of course. The Rogue is compelling because of the mix of reasonable combat ability with reasonable social and first-class exploration abilities. That is why I wanted to show both the Rogue and the two-handed melee weapon Fighter for comparison. The Sharpshooter Archer with full benefit of Extra Attacks outclasses the former and matches the latter, but at 600' range! Up to this point we haven't attempted to put a value on that range.One way to assess it is to count the damage differential (damage inflicted versus damage taken). The relevant creatures are expected to have +10 attack, dealing around 20 damage per hit, with Multiattack. The 11th Fighter Champion / Great Weapon Master can have Plate or a lighter armor + Dexterity, for 17 or 18 AC. So they get hit for about 26 a turn. The Archer can mitigate 100% of that unless a DM warps their scenarios around them (which they kind of get forced to, another problem with strong Sharpshooter!) This mitigation puts them far ahead of the Great Weapon Master.It's true that most characters manage to have advantage a lot of the time. Whenever a Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master with Extra Attacks gains advantage, they go off the scale compared with Rogue. We'd hope the Rogue has advantage more often, but we can't forget that a Battlemaster with Archery can use Precision Attack, which is worth about the same as advantage and stacks another d10 onto their shot. And spells like Bless help Extra Attackers more than single-attackers. I kept things deliberately barebones because most of the adds push Sharpshooter Extra Attackers even further ahead of Sharpshooter single-attackers like Rogue. [Edit Trip isn't helpful of course.]I would agree with you that we could might - given plenty of time and playtesting - find a better mechanic. In part, my goals are to sustain existing content and minimise additions. One reason for that is smaller changes are more likely to be successful. Adding the words "Once per turn" is a conservative change. For single-attack characters, the feat works exactly as it did before! And for all characters the rest of the feat works unaltered. Additionally, the power attack is part of D&D's history. It's cherished because it speaks to a tradition, and because it gets players to make interesting choices. Is my foe nearly out anyway, or do I need this shot to hit as hard as possible? That said, a flat +proficiency to damage would pay off Extra Attacks even more than the current mechanism. One attack at +2 to +6 to damage will do less than three with that bonus on all of them.Putting that aside, every group finds their own enjoyable space. My intent with these feat revisions is to broaden choice (make a few less desirable feats a bit better), let characters shine (avoid overshadowing, and protect each class and archetype's key advantages), and forestall warping of the narrative (pull back a couple of worst offenders that the system generally finds hard to cope with). While as I said preserving as much of the original content and adding as little as possible.I hope you find it helpful but of course it's not badwrongfun if for you, Sharpshooter should stay at full power. In many groups, no one will even take it! Let alone mix it with Archery.</blockquote>

Verification