Archery Fighting Style & Sharshooter Feat changes

[BigONotation]

Archery Fighting Style: You ignore the penalty of 1/2 cover.

Sharpshooter: +1 dex & 3/4 cover is -2.

What do you think?

[JNAProductions]

Archery Fighting Style: You ignore the penalty of 1/2 cover.

Sharpshooter: +1 dex & 3/4 cover is -2.

What do you think?

I would never bother taking either.

[TheOldCrow]

I think that your Archery Fighting Style is what Archery Fighting Style should hve been in the first place.

Your revised Sharpshooter is downright boring for a feat, however. I would drop the +1 dex and offer something with more pizzazz. I have no idea what, though.

[CritNerd]

I appreciate your opinion, but would you care to give some reasons why you feel this way? Seems like it would be a useful feat for a Ranger or similar "ranged attack" focused fighter.

[JNAProductions]

I appreciate your opinion, but would you care to give some reasons why you feel this way? Seems like it would be a useful feat for a Ranger or similar "ranged attack" focused fighter.

It becomes the worst fighting style-everything else offers a bonus. This just removes a penalty.

As for Sharpshooter, how often does 3/4ths cover even come up? I've never had it in a game, and beyond that, even if it's frequent, it's still a weak feat.

[BigONotation]

I appreciate your opinion, but would you care to give some reasons why you feel this way? Seems like it would be a useful feat for a Ranger or similar "ranged attack" focused fighter.

The current iteration of the fighting style was obviously meant to overcome firing into a melee, since 1/2 cover is -2. This achieves that without mechanical benefit outside of that situation.

Perhaps the feat could have more, like extending the normal range to 200. However, I absolutely am against -5/+10 at range. Great Weapon Masters have to risk tooth/claw/trap/breath/spells/ etc to attack a target, archers can dip into range shoot their arrows and leave in many fights.

[BigONotation]

It becomes the worst fighting style-everything else offers a bonus. This just removes a penalty.

As for Sharpshooter, how often does 3/4ths cover even come up? I've never had it in a game, and beyond that, even if it's frequent, it's still a weak feat.

Now that I think about it, if power attack (-5/+10) were removed from Sharpshooter Is be fine with it as is.

[Kryx]

+2 counteracts cover as pointed out and works nicely I think. If you remove -5/+10 it works great. Without +2 to attack Ranged suffers a bit in damage.

Sharpshooter: I would replace -5/+10 and ignoring cover. You can replace -5/+10 with +1 ability score. For the other part I'd give it something else entirely. Something comparable to cleave that GWM gets. That means something that happens occasionally and adds flavor, but isn't overpoweringly good.

Same thing on PAM - remove the bonus attack, but keep the provoke on enemy coming in as that simulates bracing for a charge from old editions.

[Zman]

Don't like it.

My modifications are...

Archery: +1 to hit, +1 to damage

Sharpshooter: Double Short Range. Downgrade Cover i.e. 3/4 to 1/2, 1/2 to none. A single -5+10 attack per turn.

[Quintessence]

Now that I think about it, if power attack (-5/+10) were removed from Sharpshooter Is be fine with it as is.

It isn't worth taking without the power attack.

[jas61292]

Now that I think about it, if power attack (-5/+10) were removed from Sharpshooter Is be fine with it as is.

It isn't worth taking without the power attack.

Honestly, I think its the other way around. Sort of.

I actually do think that every single part of Sharpshooter is poorly designed, but if anything is the most problematic, it is not the -5 / +10. Cover and long range disadvantage are the two biggest things keeping ranged combat in check compared to melee. Straight up removing both from play is a horrible design decision that should never have be put in the game. For all that anyone can say about a polearm being the best method of damage, the fact is that it doesn't matter if you are doing slightly less damage if you are doing it from a position that makes it so you cannot be hurt in return. The fact that Sharpshooter gives -5 / +10 is just icing on the cake.

But the fact is that if the feat were the -5 / +10 by itself it might not be worth it, while if it extended range and ignored cover but did nothing for damage it would still be practically mandatory for every archer ever.

[Quintessence]

Honestly, I think its the other way around. Sort of.

I actually do think that every single part of Sharpshooter is poorly designed, but if anything is the most problematic, it is not the -5 / +10. Cover and long range disadvantage are the two biggest things keeping ranged combat in check compared to melee. Straight up removing both from play is a horrible design decision that should never have be put in the game. For all that anyone can say about a polearm being the best method of damage, the fact is that it doesn't matter if you are doing slightly less damage if you are doing it from a position that makes it so you cannot be hurt in return. The fact that Sharpshooter gives -5 / +10 is just icing on the cake.

But the fact is that if the feat were the -5 / +10 by itself it might not be worth it, while if it extended range and ignored cover but did nothing for damage it would still be practically mandatory for every archer ever.

I have to disagree, how many times are you fighting at greater than 150 range? It wouldn't be mandatory it would be situational at best.

[Lombra]

What's the problen with those two features anyways? They're both cool for someone who has to optimize ammunitions during the adventuring day.

[MaxWilson]

It isn't worth taking without the power attack.

If that were true, you'd never see anyone take Spell Sniper.

However, even though Sharpshooter would be (somewhat) worth taking without the headshot option, Spell Sniper w/ Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Spear would always be strictly better, both tactically and logistically. You'd see a lot more warlocks in play.

[Slipperychicken]

As for Sharpshooter, how often does 3/4ths cover even come up? I've never had it in a game, and beyond that, even if it's frequent, it's still a weak feat.

In my games, the DM typically forgets that it exists. Also, since our only ranged attacker has sharpshooter, we usually don't think about cover much anyway.

It seems like three-quarters cover should be applied for simply leaning out from behind a corner or actually lying down behind something. Having +5 to AC and dex saves while giving enemies disadvantage to hit, just for lying down behind a tree trunk seems strong, but realistic at the same time. I guess it's the game's way of emulating the fact that cover is so important in real life.

I rarely see cover applied to melee attacks however. It might make melee a little more interesting, as I often see characters attacking around wall corners and allies and such.