D&D 5E Revised Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter - now with Homebrewery attachment

[ro]

Sharpshooter
- Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
- Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover.
- When you hit with a ranged weapon attack, roll double your base damage dice if you rolled an even number on your attack roll.
- You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to perceive possible targets within a specified 10-foot cube area that you can target.

 

[clearstream]

Sharpshooter
- Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
- Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover.
- When you hit with a ranged weapon attack, roll double your base damage dice if you rolled an even number on your attack roll.
- You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to perceive possible targets within a specified 10-foot cube area that you can target.

I like that last concept: helping the sharpshooter to spot targets! I'd like to acknowledge it as a good idea even though for my design goals it doesn't work. I'm aiming to minimise change: I've added three words, and for any character with only one attack the feat functions identically to RAW.

 

[ro]

I like that last concept: helping the sharpshooter to spot targets! I'd like to acknowledge it as a good idea even though for my design goals it doesn't work. I'm aiming to minimise change: I've added three words, and for any character with only one attack the feat functions identically to RAW.

Cool! Can you lay out your design goals again? It seems odd that you are ok with minor wording tweaks that severely effect feat power, but you aren't wanting to replace things with different abilities. I noticed this in your other thread, too, where you were hesitant to introduce wording from UA feats. What are your reasons for these decisions?

 

[Thurmas]

I'm reasonably sure that one of @vonklaude 's design goals is that the close-range disadvantage is something that CAN'T be removed, as a general balancing principle between melee and ranged.

Agreed. I think a good balance to this, which I wish was in the PHB, would have been something like: "Melee attacks against opponents not wielding a melee weapon or shield have advantage."

That would have helped give melee a little boost against ranged characters. I think if this were the case, the removing disadvantage for ranged attacks in melee wouldn't be as big of a deal, since the melee character would still have the upper hand.

I'm fine with these changes IRT melee/range balance, but I'd still like to see modifications to GWM to bring it more in balance with single weapon and dual-wielding options.

Also agree here. Either the -5/+10 being made for all fighting styles including one handed, dual wielding, unarmed and sword and board. Or some other mechanic instead of the -5/+10 that is also made available for all fighting styles. +Prof Bonus to damage is my favorite, but I can see how that can get to be a bit much. A flat +2 to damage might be ok. I just think the -5/+10 mechanic is too much of a swing, often doubling your damage without enough risk.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Agreed. I think a good balance to this, which I wish was in the PHB, would have been something like: "Melee attacks against opponents not wielding a melee weapon or shield have advantage."

That would have helped give melee a little boost against ranged characters. I think if this were the case, the removing disadvantage for ranged attacks in melee wouldn't be as big of a deal, since the melee character would still have the upper hand.

Kinda harsh on Monks though.
Makes dealing with a lot of monsters easier though.

 

[Thurmas]

Kinda harsh on Monks though.
Makes dealing with a lot of monsters easier though.

I thought about the Monk. I think that's an easy class feature that could be included in Martial Arts. "Your unarmed strikes count as melee weapons for the purposes of overcoming advantage from melee attacks against unarmed opponents." Similar to Ki-Empowered Strikes.

Also, as far as monsters, natural weapons would count as melee weapons.

 

[clearstream]

Cool! Can you lay out your design goals again? It seems odd that you are ok with minor wording tweaks that severely effect feat power, but you aren't wanting to replace things with different abilities. I noticed this in your other thread, too, where you were hesitant to introduce wording from UA feats. What are your reasons for these decisions?

Okay, so design goals first. As you know my guiding principles are let them shine (limit overshadowing), broaden choice (more viable strategies), and don't warp the narrative (don't force DMs to change their world to deal with an ability). With that in mind, what have I proposed

1) Let melee weapons shine in melee. The revisions do that both directly and indirectly. Directly, they retain disadvantage for ranged weapons in melee. Indirectly, they reduce the peak damage available to ranged weapons so that, if entering melee, characters would prefer to use a melee weapon. Ranged weapons continue to make sense at range, where their other advantages multiply their effective power.

2) Ensure melee remains viable, compared with range and casting. Ensure that bows remain viable, compared with crossbows. Enhance the viability of single-attack classes versus extra-attack classes. The revisions do that, again through retaining disadvantage and through "once per turn" on ranged power attacks.

3) Avoid "World of Pavises and Crossbows" (DMs can still create that world if they like, but most D&D adventures don't go that route, and creatures in the Monster Manual aren't designed with that kind of world in mind). The power-attack revision makes such a world substantially less likely.

A fourth consideration is likelihood of success. Minor tweaks to playtested rules are more likely to be successful. There is always risk and on the whole we as individual homebrewers don't have access to the playtesting needed to ensure our tweaks are robust. Once per turn is likely to be successful, because it leaves most of the feat unchanged and for many characters it makes no difference at all. One of the wording changes to Crossbow Expert appears to me to implement the original intent (fight effectively with sword and hand crossbow). Retaining disadvantage isn't too risky because after all, it simply prevents departure from the game default.

I tried not to change anything that wasn't absolutely necessary to change, to achieve the goals.

 

[Gwarok]

Honestly the only thing I'd do to SS is impose an initiative penalty when doing head shots, -5 or -10 or something, to represent a little extra time taken to aim the shots, otherwise leave it alone. One of the key themes to 5E, and one I like a lot more than I thought I would, is keeping things simple wherever it is practical to do so. Do we really need to make one feat that is very similar to another be tweaked to have perfect balance or trade offs? Is that even possible to judge?

 

[clearstream]

But isn't this really the main point of the feat? With this change it should be renamed "Hand Crossbow Expert". The developers have specifically stated that their intent was to make this feat applicable to other builds as well, such as casters. This change removes that, and more, completely.

I think that removing the general close-range disadvantage is an important aspect of this feat that should exist in a feat somewhere, if not this one.

I've been pondering your point here, and it seems to me a more general wording can be proposed. How about

"When you use the Attack action to make a melee attack against a creature, being within 5 feet of that creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls for the rest of the turn."

This is a more complex change. It would allow the following

• melee attack + hand crossbow bonus attack
• melee attack + drop weapon + ready weapon + bow or crossbow attack
• melee attack + Quickened ranged spell attack
• two or more creatures can re-impose disadvantage by mobbing the feat-user

What do you think?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think it doesn't actually address the point that ro was making, which is that the feat was initially designed to allow people not using crossbows, to gain a benefit from it. Particularly, but not limited to spellcasters; allowing them to cast ranged attack spells in melee, if they were willing to spend their ASI on it.