D&D General The Sharpshooter feat and multiple attacks

[Greenstone.Walker]

With regards to taking that -5 penalty for Sharpshooter, it doesn't take much to overcome it.

That's my observation as well. There seems to be many more ways to get +To Hit as an archer than as a melee fighter.

The level 12 archer in my game had (IIRC) +12 attack bonus without magic items. He used -5/+10 as a default on every attack.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

Not every ranged weapon is a longbow. The hand crossbow for example has a short range of just 30', so not having disadvantage on long range attacks helps a lot.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Not every ranged weapon is a longbow. The hand crossbow for example has a short range of just 30', so not having disadvantage on long range attacks helps a lot.

Especially when Crossbow Expert gives you an extra hand crossbow attack at 1d6+15 damage.

 

[jgsugden]

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...

Again, in my example it still made sense and was below the point of diminishing returns in terms of AC. Further, remember that it isn't just the first few rounds that are impacted - it is all remaining rounds. if you delay the kill on the first big hitter by a round, then the guy you might have finished on the first round dies on the second - but the one that otherould have died on the second survives til the third ...

This is the phenomena that people underestimate. Sharpshooter creates higher variance in the game, and that can really hurt if you get unlucky at the start of combat.

 

[Oofta]

Especially when Crossbow Expert gives you an extra hand crossbow attack at 1d6+15 damage.

Ugh. Dual wielding hand crossbows and then complaining because you have to have a free hand to load the things ... don't get me started on the a toy crossbow that should only work as a poison delivery device.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Ugh. Dual wielding hand crossbows and then complaining because you have to have a free hand to load the things ... don't get me started on the a toy crossbow that should only work as a poison delivery device.

No, you don't have to dual wield anything. You can use a single hand crossbow as the only weapon in hand, and it satisfies the requirement of Crossbow Expert:

• When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.

That's the official Sage Advice ruling, too:

Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action?​

It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.

---

Now, if you want me to say if I think the above is a good ruling, or if it's really a defensible interpretation given how convoluted that third benefit is, well... you'll be waiting awhile, I'm afraid.

 

[James Gasik]

That having been said, there's a fair amount of characters in media who dual wield hand crossbows (somehow), which no doubt fuels people's desire to do so. No matter how ridiculous the concept.

Public Enemy #1, Diablo's Demon Hunter.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That having been said, there's a fair amount of characters in media who dual wield hand crossbows (somehow), which no doubt fuels people's desire to do so. No matter how ridiculous the concept.

Oh, I'm one of them. I love a good John Woo gunfight. I think it's a very fun image, which I admit is very subjective.

That is why I find it so frustratingly stupid that after the earlier ruling I posted was made, they also made this ruling that you still have to have a hand free:

Sage Advice Compendium

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

And yeah, that's not wrong. But it's also the stupidest timeline. It's broken in a very dumb way, but only when you're maximally boring. This combined with the Shield Master ruling and the paladin unarmed smite ruling almost have me convinced that Crawford's goal is to make such brain dead and unbelievable rulings that people stop asking him questions. I mean most of the Sage Advice answers are things best left to the DM.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

But then there is the dart, which is specifically a thrown weapon with no melee component. And, if you have the supplement with it, the boomerang. (No idea what it's from, it shows up in Beyond)

And the net, though I would expect no-damage weapons can't get damage boosts.

 

[Corinnguard]

And, if you have the supplement with it, the boomerang. (No idea what it's from, it shows up in Beyond)

This is from Level Up's Adventurer's Guide: There are many forms of boomerang. This club has the thrown property (range 100/300), and cannot be used as a melee weapon. A boomerang designed to flush out or distract prey goes a shorter distance (range 50/150), but on a miss it returns to the location it was thrown from at the end of the turn.

Like the dart, the boomerang cannot be used as a melee weapon. I can see it ignoring cover by flying around whatever obstacle the target is using for cover, as it doesn't fly in a straight line. But using it in a ranged attack would require more precision than using a crossbow or a bow. So using the Sharpshooter feat with a boomerang sounds a bit iffy IMO.

 

[Quartz]

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

Oh well. But while I think that's fine for the Archery fighting style I think that with respect to Sharpshooter it fails to mark the difference between a weapon that just happens to be thrown - think of Robin killing the Sheriff at the end of Prince of Thieves - and a weapon that's designed for throwing (i.e. has the Thrown property).

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

I think I would too: it's just a cool character concept.

How does the new D&D cover this?

 

[Oofta]

Oh well. But while I think that's fine for the Archery fighting style I think that with respect to Sharpshooter it fails to mark the difference between a weapon that just happens to be thrown - think of Robin killing the Sheriff at the end of Prince of Thieves - and a weapon that's designed for throwing (i.e. has the Thrown property).



I think I would too: it's just a cool character concept.

How does the new D&D cover this?

The playtest text

​

SHARPSHOOTER​

4th-Level Feat​

Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial Weapon​

Repeatable: No​

You can make shots that others find impossible, granting you the following benefits:​

Ability Score Increase. Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.​

Bypass Cover. Your Ranged Attacks with Weapons ignore Half Cover and Three-Quarters Cover.​

Firing in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons.​

Long Shots. Attacking at Long Range doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons.​

Seems like they've cleaned up the language. It's now "ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons" which definitely makes it clearer that it's all weapons whether they're limited to ranged attacks only or not.

 

[Corinnguard]

The playtest text

​

SHARPSHOOTER​

4th-Level Feat​

Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial Weapon​

Repeatable: No​

You can make shots that others find impossible, granting you the following benefits:​

Ability Score Increase. Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.​

Bypass Cover. Your Ranged Attacks with Weapons ignore Half Cover and Three-Quarters Cover.​

Firing in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons.​

Long Shots. Attacking at Long Range doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons.​

Seems like they've cleaned up the language. It's now "ranged Attack Rolls with Weapons" which definitely makes it clearer that it's all weapons whether they're limited to ranged attacks only or not.

Has anyone tried using this version of Sharpshooter in the current edition or in the playtests?

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Any damage added to the attack makes -5/+10 less optimal (because the -5 to hit applies to "all the damage", so if there is a lot of damage besides the +10, the penalty hurts more). People using this type of attack benefit most from a "basic plus" (+1 +3...) magical weapons the most. Damage boosting weapons should be used by people who don't use -5/+10

 

[Ancalagon]

Oh, I'm one of them. I love a good John Woo gunfight. I think it's a very fun image, which I admit is very subjective.

It's a cool fighting style absolutely. Buuuut it's very unrealistic that the handcrossbow has been essentiall turned into a glock.

And that's a fundamental tension in D&D - plausibility vs "rule of cool". With all the movies, comic books etc etc, it almost is guaranteed that out there somewhere there is a cool protagonist being supercool with a ridiculous weapons. For example, I recall a certain film where the "Blue Rajah" threw forks and one of his allies threw a haunted bowling ball. Does that mean that forks should be a viable weapon in D&D? NO! But hand crossbows were turned into a superweapon, and calls for WotC to "make whips viable" are not rare.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Oofta]

It's a cool fighting style absolutely. Buuuut it's very unrealistic that the handcrossbow has been essentiall turned into a glock.

I would only be okay with it if it were magically reloading. I know D&D isn't only reality adjacent, but I still have limits on how far I want to stretch it.

 

[James Gasik]

I remember the old Repeating Crossbow from 3e*; could one make a one-handed version?

*EDIT: I could have sworn this thing was in AD&D, but it's not in the PHB. Maybe 2e Arms & Equipment?

 

[Rabulias]

I remember the old Repeating Crossbow from 3e*; could one make a one-handed version?

*EDIT: I could have sworn this thing was in AD&D, but it's not in the PHB. Maybe 2e Arms & Equipment?

It was in AD&D, but it's not the source you might think: the repeating light crossbow was named the chu-ko-nu in Oriental Adventures.

 

[James Gasik]

It was in AD&D, but it's not the source you might think: the repeating light crossbow was named the chu-ko-nu in Oriental Adventures.

Ah thank you, that makes sense.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's a cool fighting style absolutely. Buuuut it's very unrealistic that the handcrossbow has been essentiall turned into a glock.

Oh, I agree it's terribly unrealistic. I also don't care.

And that's a fundamental tension in D&D - plausibility vs "rule of cool". With all the movies, comic books etc etc, it almost is guaranteed that out there somewhere there is a cool protagonist being supercool with a ridiculous weapons. For example, I recall a certain film where the "Blue Rajah" threw forks and one of his allies threw a haunted bowling ball. Does that mean that forks should be a viable weapon in D&D? NO! But hand crossbows were turned into a superweapon, and calls for WotC to "make whips viable" are not rare.

I'd have no objection to hand crossbows doing d3 or d4 damage. Although, it looks like One D&D is going to include pistols. I guess I can just take 2 levels of Artificer and be the Gnome with Gno Gname.

Where do you draw the line?

I think I'm at a point where if we have wizards hurling firebolts all day and fireballs a handful of times without sweating (quite a feat to beat the heat!) and then for the finale creating a pocket dimension for a meal or to store untold loot, that I think I'd like the option to include some minimal magical tricks for everyone else. Especially when darkvision is just a thing. Nobody's biological eyes work like that without magic, but the game seems afraid to say, "Oh, yeah, that's actually just magic."

I mean, Crossbow Expert allows a high-level Fighter, with a surge of adrenaline, to fire a heavy crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds, and we're to believe that's not magic? A heavy crossbow that requires a windlass or crow's foot to span it? When light crossbows historically had a battlefield rate of fire around 2 to 4 per minute? That's at least a 20-fold increase in firepower. It's double the specified rate of fire of the M1 Garand (40-50 shots/minute), meaning it's got a higher aimed rate of fire than the semi-automatic rifle credited as "the greatest battle implement ever devised" precisely because of how it enhanced the firepower of infantry. Nobody is that much of an expert! Like the magic is already there. We're just in denial about it.

This is the thing with D&D. We've got this heavy bold culture of "no magic unless caster! NO MAGIC UNLESS MAGICIAN! ONLY SPELLS IF MAGICIAN!" But we've also got a game with this pervasive problem that casters are a lot of fun and get really powerful and have a lot of dynamic choices, while martials... mostly decide whom to attack just like they did at level 1. And one of them scales really well, while the other struggles to stay relevant.

So we have this situation where martials have to stick to reality because they're "not magic," so when we improve them we're obliged to only let them do things you arbitrarily accomplish in 15th century Europe. Meanwhile, casters can do whatever you can imagine from fiction? Well no wonder it's broke! There's your problem.

I just... I don't find "that's not realistic" to be not only a credible defense anymore, I don't think it's a desirable defense anymore.