D&D General The Sharpshooter feat and multiple attacks

[Clint_L]

In my games, super long range attacks aren't much of a factor. Cover can be, though usually the ranged attacker just chooses a target that isn't in cover. So this feat really comes down to the -5/+10 option.

This is not as powerful as many people think. Let's say you would normally hit a target on an 11+, doing 8.5 damage (4.5+4), or 4.25 average damage per attack. If you opted for the extra damage from sharpshooter, you hit on a 16+, doing 18.5 (4.5+4+10) damage, or...about 4.6 damage per attack. Of course, the initial AC of the target has a huge impact on the value of the feat; basically it is much stronger against low AC targets, and much weaker against high AC ones, as you would expect. As pointed out, it also makes your damage output much less predictable.

Also, it is often taken by rogues, which makes the -5 to the attack roll even riskier since the +10 bonus has to be weighed against the risk of losing your sneak attack damage on those attacks.

Right now, choosing to use the +5/-10 option is not an automatic choice. Players forego it all the time, for good reasons. I like abilities that force players to make choices.

 

[Zardnaar]

In my games, super long range attacks aren't much of a factor. Cover can be, though usually the ranged attacker just chooses a target that isn't in cover. So this feat really comes down to the -5/+10 option.

This is not as powerful as many people think. Let's say you would normally hit a target on an 11+, doing 8.5 damage (4.5+4), or 4.25 average damage per attack. If you opted for the extra damage from sharpshooter, you hit on a 16+, doing 18.5 (4.5+4+10) damage, or...about 4.6 damage per attack. Of course, the initial AC of the target has a huge impact on the value of the feat; basically it is much stronger against low AC targets, and much weaker against high AC ones, as you would expect. As pointed out, it also makes your damage output much less predictable.

Also, it is often taken by rogues, which makes the -5 to the attack roll even riskier since the +10 bonus has to be weighed against the risk of losing your sneak attack damage on those attacks.

Right now, choosing to use the +5/-10 option is not an automatic choice. Players forego it all the time, for good reasons. I like abilities that force players to make choices.

It's bad on rogues as they only get 1 attack anyway.

Exception woukd be CBE.

I called this feat broken
in 2014.

 

[Clint_L]

It's not great for Rangers, either, because every time you can add extra damage to your attack (e.g. Hunter's Mark) it devalues Sharpshooter.

Same example: 11+ to hit normally. Ranger using Hunter's mark does 6 average damage per attack. Using sharpshooter, that becomes 5.5. So you really have to pick your moments, such as when you have advantage or you target is very soft.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not great for Rangers, either, because every time you can add extra damage to your attack (e.g. Hunter's Mark) it devalues Sharpshooter.

Same example: 11+ to hit normally. Ranger using Hunter's mark does 6 average damage per attack. Using sharpshooter, that becomes 5.5. So you really have to pick your moments, such as when you have advantage or you target is very soft.

I've seen it rock on rangers. Hunters and gloomstalkers. Hunters mark can be obsolete in certain scenarios.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's not great for Rangers, either, because every time you can add extra damage to your attack (e.g. Hunter's Mark) it devalues Sharpshooter.

Same story when you try to add the Bugbear's Surprise attack (Monsters of the Multiverse version) and/or the Favored Foe option then?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sharpshooter has been a big player in 2 near TPKs when I have been DMing. In both instances, the archer was essentially useless at the start of combat ... and having a PC effectively do nothing in combat for a round or two in a difficult combat can make a huge difference.

While sharshooter increases your average damage against foes with typical ACs, it also increases the odds that you'll totally miss the enemy on multiple back to back attacks at the start of combat. In both instances where the archer was just missing, the enemy had an AC high enough that Sharpshooter wasn't adding that much damage on average in theory - but with the extra unlucky misses it was devastaingly bad for the group when the PCs just flat out missed so much.

If you hit 70% of the time without Sharpshooter (requires a 7), you only hit 45% of the time with it (requires a 12). You'll have a 2.7% chance of having three misses in a row without Sharpshooter, and a 16.6% chance of having three misses in a row with it. That goes from once in 37 combats to once in 6 combats. You may not have 37 challengeing combats in a campaign - but you might have several challenging combats where you miss those first three attacks in a campaign .... and if you do have that unlucky streak that happens once in 37 tries, it wouldn't just be missing 3 attacks ... it would be missing the first 6 if you're using Sharshooter and having that decreased chances to hit.

Sharpshooter is often evaluated only by the damage per round or damage per attack impact - but people drastically underestimate the risks that it introduces.

Depends on whether those attacks would have killed a significant number of the opponents in the first three rounds.
However, bear in mind that if you're up against high-AC opponents, you can just not use the power attack option.

In my games, super long range attacks aren't much of a factor. Cover can be, though usually the ranged attacker just chooses a target that isn't in cover. So this feat really comes down to the -5/+10 option.

This is not as powerful as many people think. Let's say you would normally hit a target on an 11+, doing 8.5 damage (4.5+4), or 4.25 average damage per attack. If you opted for the extra damage from sharpshooter, you hit on a 16+, doing 18.5 (4.5+4+10) damage, or...about 4.6 damage per attack. Of course, the initial AC of the target has a huge impact on the value of the feat; basically it is much stronger against low AC targets, and much weaker against high AC ones, as you would expect. As pointed out, it also makes your damage output much less predictable.

Also, it is often taken by rogues, which makes the -5 to the attack roll even riskier since the +10 bonus has to be weighed against the risk of losing your sneak attack damage on those attacks.

Right now, choosing to use the +5/-10 option is not an automatic choice. Players forego it all the time, for good reasons. I like abilities that force players to make choices.

Needing 11+ to hit at base for most characters using Sharpshooter is unusually high AC as far as I know. Against that high an AC, most would just stick with the other benefits of the feat.

Have to admit, I've never seen it taken by a Rogue however.

 

[Oofta]

Depends on whether those attacks would have killed a significant number of the opponents in the first three rounds.
However, bear in mind that if you're up against high-AC opponents, you can just not use the power attack option.




Needing 11+ to hit at base for most characters using Sharpshooter is unusually high AC as far as I know. Against that high an AC, most would just stick with the other benefits of the feat.

Have to admit, I've never seen it taken by a Rogue however.

I've seen it taken by a rogue for the no cover benefit and extra range.

The average AC by CR is: <5 = 13; 5-10 = 15; 11-16 = 17; >16 = 19. I know a lot of people will claim that average AC is 14, but that's only because there are so many low level monsters in the book. Taking the -5 is quite good if you know it's a low AC monster, but risky with considerable variance at most levels. You can "counteract" the penalty by getting bonuses, but unless your to-hit number is so high you only miss on a 1, I question the value.

On the other hand, the PC that can hit a target peeking through an arrow slit two football fields away with no penalty just annoys me conceptually.

 

[Andras]

I had it with a ranger, but generally I only used it if I had advantage on the attack. The risk of doing no damage was too high to use it regularly. I was also a Druid multiclass and used higher casts of Summon Bestial Spirit extensively for extra attacks and damage. That was the single most effective damage enhancement that character had.

 

[Quartz]

Has anyone tried it with thrown weapons? Say a Machete-like character?

 

[Oofta]

Has anyone tried it with thrown weapons? Say a Machete-like character?

Sharpshooter may not be technically legal with thrown weapons. Thrown weapons are not considered "ranged weapon attacks", they're "ranged attack with a melee weapon" depending on whom you ask. I think it's way too finicky but ask your DM.

I checked sage advice and it doesn't address it, but there is this:

Does the Archery fighting style work with a melee weapon that you throw?​

No, the Archery feature benefits ranged weapons. A melee weapon, such as a dagger or handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged attack with it.​

​

For what it's worth, I would allow it in my home game.