Alternative Archery fighting style implementations?

[coolAlias]

When running games, players of non-Archers have expressed their dismay, e.g. "wait, what? You have a plus 8 to hit?!" <feelings of unfairness> (for comparison, everyone else has +5 to +6 to hit).

Please note that this is not a discussion about why +2 to-hit is or is not balanced.

How would you design Archery fighting style in such a way that it was roughly equivalent in power to the current implementation but without using any to-hit modifiers?

EDIT: Edited above for clarity and adding in collection of ideas from the thread:

IDEAS

You have +1 to hit and +1 to damage with ranged weapon attacks.
You have +2 to damage with ranged weapon attacks.
When you make a ranged weapon attack, you ignore half cover.
Once per turn, when you fire an arrow from a bow that isn't a crossbow, you may fire two arrows instead. The second arrow uses a separate attack roll and may hit a new target. You do not add your attribute bonus to the second arrow's damage.
When you reduce a creature to 0 hp with a ranged weapon attack, you may attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature 5 feet of the original target that had cover from your attack because of the original target. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature without the benefit of the cover, it takes damage equal to the weapon damage die of your ranged weapon attack.
When you roll damage for a ranged weapon attack, treat any roll below your proficiency bonus as your proficiency bonus. If your proficiency bonus is higher than the maximum value you could roll, use the maximum value instead.
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

I really like Easy_Lee's idea and have modified it slightly to keep it more in line with TWF's action economy:

ARCHERY
When you take the Attack action with a ranged weapon that does not have the loading property, you may make one additional attack with that weapon as a bonus action. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

[coolAlias]

If I was designing it, I think I would make it something like this:

Archery
When making a ranged weapon attack, you ignore cover provided by creatures engaged in melee with your target and, if your attack misses, there is no chance that it will hit any such creature providing cover.

EDIT: That might be too restrictive, maybe treat 3/4 cover as half cover and half cover as no cover?

If you were a player planning to play an archer, would the above still be enticing? Maybe not, considering that it overlaps with the Sharpshooter feat. Perhaps the problem is limited design space. :/

[ElChad]

+1 to hit, +1 to damage?

[coolAlias]

+1 to hit, +1 to damage?
That would be better than it is currently, but I'd prefer something that doesn't provide any static modifier to hit.

[Diebo]

If you pay attention to cover, ammunition, and disadvantage at melee range, the +2 balances.

Cover: make it hard to get a clean shot. Have people move around. -2 to hit for partial cover iirc. Add terrain/trees, shift opponents around to place the archer's companions in front of them. If they work to get a clean shot, they deserve the +2.

Ammunition: You collect half of your ammunition after a battle. I find this less fun to track, but it does balance out ranged weapons. When you run out of ammo, you have to switch to melee until you can find/buy more, and presumably your aren't as good at melee as a fighter who took the melee style. It adds a certain decision making to the process (i.e., do I use the arrow on this weak thing, when I need to save them for something more dangerous?).

Melee: If you attack at close range (without Crossbow Expert) you have disadvantage, forcing you to either burn your disengage (if you are a rogue) or risk an opportunity attack. Have opponents run up (even dash) to engage the archer.

Sure, if the player takes Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter, this mitigates everything except ammunition, but it also takes two feats (and Archery fight style). To really use sharpshooter, they'll need to burn at least two more ASIs to get dexterity up to 20.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

If you pay attention to cover, ammunition, and disadvantage at melee range, the +2 balances.

Cover: make it hard to get a clean shot. Have people move around. -2 to hit for partial cover iirc. Add terrain/trees, shift opponents around to place the archer's companions in front of them. If they work to get a clean shot, they deserve the +2.Pretty much this. Archers are much more likely to have to deal with things like cover than melee types. +2 to hit basically negates half-cover (which is what you tend to have when fighting another creature in melee) while not being useless in situations where cover doesn't matter (or groups that don't bother with it). It's a reasonably clean implementation and I don't have a problem with different players at the table having different bonuses on their attacks. When the barbarian has to worry about the archer always being in the way of his greataxe, he can start complaining.

[coolAlias]

If you pay attention to cover, ammunition, and disadvantage at melee range, the +2 balances.

Cover: make it hard to get a clean shot. Have people move around. -2 to hit for partial cover iirc. Add terrain/trees, shift opponents around to place the archer's companions in front of them. If they work to get a clean shot, they deserve the +2.

Ammunition: You collect half of your ammunition after a battle. I find this less fun to track, but it does balance out ranged weapons. When you run out of ammo, you have to switch to melee until you can find/buy more, and presumably your aren't as good at melee as a fighter who took the melee style. It adds a certain decision making to the process (i.e., do I use the arrow on this weak thing, when I need to save them for something more dangerous?).

Melee: If you attack at close range (without Crossbow Expert) you have disadvantage, forcing you to either burn your disengage (if you are a rogue) or risk an opportunity attack. Have opponents run up (even dash) to engage the archer.

Sure, if the player takes Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter, this mitigates everything except ammunition, but it also takes two feats (and Archery fight style). To really use sharpshooter, they'll need to burn at least two more ASIs to get dexterity up to 20.
Yes, I realize all of this.

I use copious amounts of cover in my games (PHB: +2 AC for half cover, +5 AC for 3/4 cover, or total cover with enemy stepping out to take pot shots forcing PCs to take Ready action for a single attack or find some other way), we track ammunition, and the archer switches to melee when enemies get up in their face.

It's all great - the Archer isn't a problem at all in my games. I still don't like giving them a +2 to hit and am interested in hearing ideas for alternate implementations that let the Archer feel good about their decision to be an archer.

[some guy]

If I was designing it, I think I would make it something like this:

Archery
When making a ranged weapon attack, you ignore cover provided by creatures engaged in melee with your target and, if your attack misses, there is no chance that it will hit any such creature providing cover.

Yeah, I feel this is fair, and thought of implenting it myself. I would just change it to "You ignore half cover." for simplicity.

(By the way, unless you're playing with houserules, creatures providing cover will never be hit by a shot intended for an other target.)

[coolAlias]

Yeah, I feel this is fair, and thought of implenting it myself. I would just change it to "You ignore half cover." for simplicity.

(By the way, unless you're playing with houserules, creatures providing cover will never be hit by a shot intended for an other target.)
I think there is a variant rule in the DMG about hitting cover, but maybe I've misremembered.

I've realized that part of the problem is limited design space; anything mitigating cover overlaps the Sharpshooter feat, so what can you give them other than that? +2 to hit? :(

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Yeah, I feel this is fair, and thought of implenting it myself. I would just change it to "You ignore half cover." for simplicity.

(By the way, unless you're playing with houserules, creatures providing cover will never be hit by a shot intended for an other target.)It would be a start, but it's still a pretty considerable nerf. As it is, archers get to compensate for half cover while still getting a bonus in other circumstances (in line with the other fighting styles that are always on rather than just ignoring one disadvantage) and benefiting from taking other features (Sharpshooter, mostly) that allow them to ignore cover later on.
Ignoring half cover (and maybe reducing 3/4 cover to half cover) would be a start, but it really needs something more to keep it comparable to the other fighting styles.

How would you feel about something like a bonus action (maybe fluffed as taking careful aim) that grants the +2 to hit? (Advantage seems like to much to give for a bonus action.) This would be a bit of a pain for some rangers who have bonus action spells they want to cast, but it would tone down the "always on"-ness that seems to bug the OP while still letting archers have their accuracy.

Edit:
Another random idea for an alternative Archery Fighting Style:
When you reduce a creature to 0 hp with a ranged weapon attack, you may attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature 5 feet of the original target that had cover from your attack because of the original target. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature without the benefit of the cover, it takes damage equal to the weapon damage die of your ranged weapon attack.

Think of all the times in movies and novels that you've seen someone shoot an arrow through one enemy to hit another behind them. This would give archers the opportunity to do that when they fire a killing shot. It may not be perfect, but at least it's something different that doesn't compete with Sharpshooter for the cover-negating effect. I thought about also having it trigger off critical hits but figured I'd present the lower power version as the starting point.

[coolAlias]

It would be a start, but it's still a pretty considerable nerf. As it is, archers get to compensate for half cover while still getting a bonus in other circumstances (in line with the other fighting styles that are always on rather than just ignoring one disadvantage) and benefiting from taking other features (Sharpshooter, mostly) that allow them to ignore cover later on.
Ignoring half cover (and maybe reducing 3/4 cover to half cover) would be a start, but it really needs something more to keep it comparable to the other fighting styles.

How would you feel about something like a bonus action (maybe fluffed as taking careful aim) that grants the +2 to hit? (Advantage seems like to much to give for a bonus action.) This would be a bit of a pain for some rangers who have bonus action spells they want to cast, but it would tone down the "always on"-ness that seems to bug the OP while still letting archers have their accuracy.
A bonus action to aim is a good idea, I like that. It's something I'd considered previously for Sharpshooter, actually, but hadn't considered applying it to the Archery fighting style.

Either a bonus action, or the character cannot move* that turn.

* At all? More than 5'? More than half move?

Tangent: Another change to Sharpshooter that I've considered is allowing the archer only one of the "ignore" benefits at a time - so you either ignore cover OR ignore disadvantage for long range, but never both at the same time. In that case, Archery allowing you to ignore half cover would still be useful in tandem with Sharpshooter when shooting at long range.

[Diebo]

Yes, I realize all of this.

I use copious amounts of cover in my games (PHB: +2 AC for half cover, +5 AC for 3/4 cover, or total cover with enemy stepping out to take pot shots forcing PCs to take Ready action for a single attack or find some other way), we track ammunition, and the archer switches to melee when enemies get up in their face.

It's all great - the Archer isn't a problem at all in my games. I still don't like giving them a +2 to hit and am interested in hearing ideas for alternate implementations that let the Archer feel good about their decision to be an archer.

How about remove the +2 to hit, and give them +2 damage instead? More damage is a proxy for better accuracy, if you think about it, and it is as balanced as Dueling weapon style.

[Zman]

+1 to hit, +1 to damage?

This is what I did in my Tweaks.

I also changed Sharpshooter to just downgrade cover one step, double short range, and only one -5/+10 attack in a turn.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

A bonus action to aim is a good idea, I like that. It's something I'd considered previously for Sharpshooter, actually, but hadn't considered applying it to the Archery fighting style.

Either a bonus action, or the character cannot move* that turn.

* At all? More than 5'? More than half move?

Tangent: Another change to Sharpshooter that I've considered is allowing the archer only one of the "ignore" benefits at a time - so you either ignore cover OR ignore disadvantage for long range, but never both at the same time. In that case, Archery allowing you to ignore half cover would still be useful in tandem with Sharpshooter when shooting at long range.I wouldn't take away an archer's ability to move and shoot accurately, but that's just me. Maybe match the stealth rules and allow them to move up to half their speed if you really want to go in that direction.

The Sharpshooter house rule is interesting. I've never dealt with Sharpshooter in my games but I'll have to keep it in mind in case I have problems with it in the future.

In case it got missed, I edited another idea into my last post, but you had replied before I got the edit posted.

Another random idea for an alternative Archery Fighting Style:
When you reduce a creature to 0 hp with a ranged weapon attack, you may attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature 5 feet of the original target that had cover from your attack because of the original target. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature without the benefit of the cover, it takes damage equal to the weapon damage die of your ranged weapon attack.

Think of all the times in movies and novels that you've seen someone shoot an arrow through one enemy to hit another behind them. This would give archers the opportunity to do that when they fire a killing shot. It may not be perfect, but at least it's something different that doesn't compete with Sharpshooter for the cover-negating effect. I thought about also having it trigger off critical hits but figured I'd present the lower power version as the starting point.

[SharkForce]

just to be clear, archery style doesn't mess with bounded accuracy. bounded accuracy means that you don't let DCs get so high that an action isn't worth trying. an attack roll is not a DC, so bounded accuracy is not broken; nothing else is made unable to effectively contribute as a result of the higher numbers that archery style allows. you could have a character with +20 to hit and it wouldn't break bounded accuracy (though it might be broken in the sense that it is overpowered, it isn't because of bounded accuracy)

in contrast, if you had a character with 30 AC, you would find that there is no meaningful difference between an attack bonus of -5 and +9, and that a lot of low-level threats are basically completely incapable of doing anything to that 30 AC character. a character with 21 AC (as high as you can get without magic in core, i think) can't just ignore an invisible stalker or a ogre, for example (or at least, not without almost certainly paying some price in hit points). a 30 AC character would be able to just treat those monsters as non-threats and focus on their main target with impunity, and it would be almost pointless for those monsters to even try to hit the AC 30 character. thus, bounded accuracy would be violated.

so anyways, main point: bounded accuracy has no problems with high numbers on trying to do things, only with high numbers for difficulty. a DC 30 locked door violates bounded accuracy. a DC 30 hold monster violates bounded accuracy. a rogue with +17 and a minimum roll of 10 on their thieve's tools checks does not violate bounded accuracy.

this is not to say that archery style doesn't need changes (you've found it's leading to disatisfaction for some of your players, so changing it is probably a good idea)... but it isn't a bounded accuracy problem.

[coolAlias]

Another random idea for an alternative Archery Fighting Style:
When you reduce a creature to 0 hp with a ranged weapon attack, you may attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Choose another creature 5 feet of the original target that had cover from your attack because of the original target. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature without the benefit of the cover, it takes damage equal to the weapon damage die of your ranged weapon attack.

Think of all the times in movies and novels that you've seen someone shoot an arrow through one enemy to hit another behind them. This would give archers the opportunity to do that when they fire a killing shot. It may not be perfect, but at least it's something different that doesn't compete with Sharpshooter for the cover-negating effect. I thought about also having it trigger off critical hits but figured I'd present the lower power version as the starting point.
That could be interesting, sort of like one of the GWM feat's benefit.

This is what I did in my Tweaks.

I also changed Sharpshooter to just downgrade cover one step, double short range, and only one -5/+10 attack in a turn.
That's a nice tweak. I don't think I'd limit the -5/+10 to once per turn, but I like the rest.

EDIT: @SharkForce - Good point; I should have phrased the issue differently.

[Easy_Lee]

Cover is the simplest way, but that overlaps with sharpshooter. Here's another idea, modeled after twf which adds up to +5 damage.

Archery: once per turn, when you fire an arrow from a bow that isn't a crossbow, you may fire two arrows instead. The second arrow uses a separate attack roll and may hit a new target. You do not add your attribute bonus to the second arrow's damage.

Why not crossbows? Because they're too good as is.

[coolAlias]

Cover is the simplest way, but that overlaps with sharpshooter. Here's another idea, modeled after twf which adds up to +5 damage.

Archery: once per turn, when you fire an arrow from a bow that isn't a crossbow, you may fire two arrows instead. The second arrow uses a separate attack roll and may hit a new target. You do not add your attribute bonus to the second arrow's damage.

Why not crossbows? Because they're too good as is.
That's a neat idea, I like it! As a player, that would be pretty fun, too, and it doesn't step on the Ranger's toes with all their bonus action spells.

[mephnick]

I like it the way it is only because it allows me to make switch hitter characters without maxing Dex. I only need a 14 there if I get the fighting style. On pure archer builds it's a little overkill yeah, but make sure you're counting enemies AND allies as half cover in combat.

[coolAlias]

I like it the way it is only because it allows me to make switch hitter characters without maxing Dex. I only need a 14 there if I get the fighting style. On pure archer builds it's a little overkill yeah, but make sure you're counting enemies AND allies as half cover in combat.
Yep, allies, enemies, rocks, trees. :D

Dex 14 + proficiency bonus is a perfectly acceptable to-hit bonus even with a main weapon.

[D-naras]

How about treating the minimum result of ranged weapon damage dice as equal to your proficiency if less (to a maximum of the original die size). It's different, it scales and models precision

[Pex]

I very much dislike the chosen implementation of the Archery fighting style. Granting a flat +2 to hit in all circumstances just feels wrong to me.

When running games, players of non-Archers have expressed their dismay, e.g. "wait, what? You have a plus 8 to hit?!" <feelings of unfairness> (for comparison, everyone else has +5 to +6 to hit).

Anyway, how would you design Archery fighting style in a way that didn't mess with bounded accuracy but still allowed Archers to consider it a solid choice?

But the archer is only doing 1d8 + 3 damage. Meanwhile, long sword guy is doing 1d8 + 5 damage and having a higher AC thanks to shield. Archer counters with Sharpshooter. Long sword responds he then has the higher end result plus to hit if that's all that matters and Greataxe guy chimes in with rerolling 1s and 2s on a d12 and Great Weapon Master and Greatsword/maul guy is happy as well.

I accept the archery +2 to hit bothers you. That's your aesthetic taste. No problem. I'm not having that issue and actually leaning to liking having the extra damage more.

[coolAlias]

But the archer is only doing 1d8 + 3 damage. Meanwhile, long sword guy is doing 1d8 + 5 damage and having a higher AC thanks to shield. Archer counters with Sharpshooter. Long sword responds he then has the higher end result plus to hit if that's all that matters and Greataxe guy chimes in with rerolling 1s and 2s on a d12 and Great Weapon Master and Greatsword/maul guy is happy as well.

I accept the archery +2 to hit bothers you. That's your aesthetic taste. No problem. I'm not having that issue and actually leaning to liking having the extra damage more.
That's assuming the longsword guy takes Dueling for +2 damage rather than Defense or some other style. I'll grant you that that is usually the case. ;)

But then the archer counters that he is getting to make attacks every round every fight even against enemies that flee, whereas the melee has to stow/drop their current weapon, take out a ranged one (usually thrown) that doesn't really suit their style, and hope the enemy is still within their range. Plus, the archer doesn't care about AC that much because he's not in danger of being hit most of the time.

Skillful DMs counter the archer in ways already described (cover etc), as well as design most of their combats so that melee can begin within the first round.

In other words, I'm not arguing balance here. Archers in my games are not really any more effective in combat than any of the other characters, it's just a problem of player perception. On top of that, I personally don't really like the +2 to hit implementation - it just feels out of place to me in the context of the other (non-UA) 5e abilities.

I like quite a few of the ideas mentioned so far. I'll have to see if the Archer character likes any of them next time we play. ;)

[MaxWilson]

I very much dislike the chosen implementation of the Archery fighting style. Granting a flat +2 to hit in all circumstances just feels wrong to me.

When running games, players of non-Archers have expressed their dismay, e.g. "wait, what? You have a plus 8 to hit?!" <feelings of unfairness> (for comparison, everyone else has +5 to +6 to hit).

Anyway, how would you design Archery fighting style in a way that didn't mess with bounded accuracy but still allowed Archers to consider it a solid choice?

You misunderstand bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is, in the words of the man who coined the term:


The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

Bounded accuracy does NOT in any way imply that it's a problem when some player characters have a greater to-hit bonus than other PCs. There is no "set schedule" which has to be kept in sync. To break bounded accuracy would be to raise monster ACs by +2 across the board to compensate with Archery style--that is breaking bounded accuracy because it is assuming that all PCs will get an equivalent +2 bonus. Don't do that.

TL;DR Archery style doesn't break bounded accuracy. It's fine.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

That could be interesting, sort of like one of the GWM feat's benefit.I actually based it more on the Sweeping Attack Battle Master maneuver, but realized part way through that it was bordering on Great Weapon Master which is what had me thinking about having it trigger on critical hits. All in all, it's probably a bit too complicated for a fighting style.

[coolAlias]

You misunderstand bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is, in the words of the man who coined the term:
Yes, that was already pointed out. Sorry for the mis-titled thread.

EDIT: There, fixed it. Happy now?

[Cl0001]

If I was designing it, I think I would make it something like this:

Archery
When making a ranged weapon attack, you ignore cover provided by creatures engaged in melee with your target and, if your attack misses, there is no chance that it will hit any such creature providing cover.

EDIT: That might be too restrictive, maybe treat 3/4 cover as half cover and half cover as no cover?

If you were a player planning to play an archer, would the above still be enticing? Maybe not, considering that it overlaps with the Sharpshooter feat. Perhaps the problem is limited design space. :/

I wouldn't do anything with cover, because then you're just making the sharpshooter feat less useful to archers. I would go with +1 damage/attack rolls or something like the GWFS where you can reroll low numbers.

[mephnick]

I wouldn't do anything with cover, because then you're just making the sharpshooter feat less useful to archers.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

[StoicLeaf]

That's assuming the longsword guy takes Dueling for +2 damage rather than Defense or some other style. I'll grant you that that is usually the case. ;)

But then the archer counters that he is getting to make attacks every round every fight even against enemies that flee, whereas the melee has to stow/drop their current weapon, take out a ranged one (usually thrown) that doesn't really suit their style, and hope the enemy is still within their range. Plus, the archer doesn't care about AC that much because he's not in danger of being hit most of the time.

Skillful DMs counter the archer in ways already described (cover etc), as well as design most of their combats so that melee can begin within the first round.

In other words, I'm not arguing balance here. Archers in my games are not really any more effective in combat than any of the other characters, it's just a problem of player perception. On top of that, I personally don't really like the +2 to hit implementation - it just feels out of place to me in the context of the other (non-UA) 5e abilities.

I like quite a few of the ideas mentioned so far. I'll have to see if the Archer character likes any of them next time we play. ;)

I think that's what you need to work on.
Players looking at other classes and feeling envious without really understanding the game mechanics or design decisions isn't grounds for changing things.

I personally like the +2 to hit and wouldn't change it.

[thoroughlyS]

Everyone is talking about how negating cover would detract from the Sharpshooter feat, and here I am thinking that Sharpshooter is OP as is, especially when paired with the current Archery Fighting style. As it stands currently, you really shoot at a -3/+10 with Sharpshooter, because now you also ignore the AC boost from cover. And Sharpshooter gives 3 bonuses (compared to Great Weapon Master's 2) which tells me it's fine to convert one into a replacement fighting style. But if you ask me, you're copying the wrong bullet point.

ARCHERY
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

SHARPSHOOTER
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:
• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.

[TheUser]

I very much dislike the chosen implementation of the Archery fighting style. Granting a flat +2 to hit in all circumstances just feels wrong to me.

When running games, players of non-Archers have expressed their dismay, e.g. "wait, what? You have a plus 8 to hit?!" <feelings of unfairness> (for comparison, everyone else has +5 to +6 to hit).

Anyway, how would you design Archery fighting style in a way that didn't mess with bounded accuracy but still allowed Archers to consider it a solid choice?

Tell them that the player may hit more often but they don't hit as hard as someone who takes a different fighting style.

[Lombra]

Do you properly track ammunitions? 20 arrows should work for around 40 attacks since half of them is lost after they are shot. Ammo users have to track ammunitions, archery simply makes it less likely to waste them, since (without houserules) melee attacks are resource-free.

And don't allow to stock up 100 arrows on one character, where are they gonna fit? A quiver holds 20, it's unlikely that someone is going to bring along more than 60 arrows on an adventure.

Edit: if you read it deeply you will realize that it is basically a way to reward clear shots and to not penalize half-covered targets, which is reasonable.

[coolAlias]

Everyone is talking about how negating cover would detract from the Sharpshooter feat, and here I am thinking that Sharpshooter is OP as is, especially when paired with the current Archery Fighting style. As it stands currently, you really shoot at a -3/+10 with Sharpshooter, because now you also ignore the AC boost from cover. And Sharpshooter gives 3 bonuses (compared to Great Weapon Master's 2) which tells me it's fine to convert one into a replacement fighting style. But if you ask me, you're copying the wrong bullet point.

ARCHERY
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

SHARPSHOOTER
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:
• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
I like how simple this idea is, as well as it neatly separates the two features.

However, I think it makes the archery fighting style a little too situational. Very few are the encounters in my game where an archer ever needs to make a shot beyond normal range.

Also, due to how I run my games, I don't actually consider archery to be substantially more powerful than other fighting styles (despite not liking some of the mechanics, e.g. ignoring all cover and distance penalties at the same time), so I don't really want to make it weaker, but instead come up with something that doesn't stand out so much to other players yet keeps the archer's power level essentially where it is.

Not a pressing issue, certainly, but I figured this would be the best place to get some ideas.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Replacing the +2 bonus with a bit of Sharpshooter is actually doubly bad for the feat-- you're reducing the total number of benefits granted and the -5/+10 becomes less appealing.

Fighting Styles are generally fairly small, passive benefits, so Archery Style should probably be similar. Ignoring the penalty for making ranged attacks in melee range isn't a bad thought, perhaps? (Crossbow Expert has a lot more going on than Sharpshooter, and linking that ability to crossbows specifically is odd)


Do you properly track ammunitions? 20 arrows should work for around 40 attacks since half of them is lost after they are shot. Ammo users have to track ammunitions, archery simply makes it less likely to waste them, since (without houserules) melee attacks are resource-free.

And don't allow to stock up 100 arrows on one character, where are they gonna fit? A quiver holds 20, it's unlikely that someone is going to bring along more than 60 arrows on an adventure.

Edit: if you read it deeply you will realize that it is basically a way to reward clear shots and to not penalize half-covered targets, which is reasonable.
Grod's Law: You can't balance bad mechanics ("archery style is more powerful than alternatives") by making them annoying to use ("now track your ammunition! And your weight, so you don't just write down "500 arrows" and forget about it!"). Doing so irritates the players who aren't a problem, and doesn't really disincentives the ones who are.

[Zalabim]

Fighting Styles are generally fairly small, passive benefits, so Archery Style should probably be similar. Ignoring the penalty for making ranged attacks in melee range isn't a bad thought, perhaps? (Crossbow Expert has a lot more going on than Sharpshooter, and linking that ability to crossbows specifically is odd)
I had to think about this recently, and the problem with that is there's then no reason not to draw a rapier and stab with that when something gets into melee range. Well, there would be one reason: attacking someone else. Is that worth taking the fighting style?

[thoroughlyS]

Replacing the +2 bonus with a bit of Sharpshooter is actually doubly bad for the feat-- you're reducing the total number of benefits granted and the -5/+10 becomes less appealing.
It becomes equally as appealing as the one from Great Weapon Master.

Fighting Styles are generally fairly small, passive benefits, so Archery Style should probably be similar. Ignoring the penalty for making ranged attacks in melee range isn't a bad thought, perhaps? (Crossbow Expert has a lot more going on than Sharpshooter, and linking that ability to crossbows specifically is odd)
I agree with the points you've mentioned, but then it steps all over the Close Quarters Shooter (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/02_UA_Underdark_Characters.pdf) fighting style. Although maybe that's for the best.

[Lombra]

Grod's Law: You can't balance bad mechanics ("archery style is more powerful than alternatives") by making them annoying to use ("now track your ammunition! And your weight, so you don't just write down "500 arrows" and forget about it!"). Doing so irritates the players who aren't a problem, and doesn't really disincentives the ones who are.

Yeah ignore the rules, that's a good way to play and argue about balance. And complain about things that feel too powerful because of the rules that you ignored for the sake of "fun" that now make the game less "fun" for those who are not gaining benefits from the ignorance of those rules. I don't get why you wouldn't track weight and ammunitions. It's part of the game and balances out the other benefits like archery and dumped strength characters. If you want to play a ranged character with unlimited ammunitions either you play a warlock or you talk to your DM and plan for a magic item later on, ignoring the "tedious" ammo tracking is not contributing to the fun of the table in this case.

Why is archery more powerful than the other options anyways? Dueling and great weapon improve the damage on a hit, protection adds a unique useful mechanic, defense improves your survivability and these are all if I correctly recall. I don't see them as being waaay inferior to archery, but I suppose that everyone looks at archery like: "now your SS malus is -3" and get upset, but think about it: how many times do you gain advantage on a ranged attack? After hiding? Faerie fire? Stunned enemy? In melee you can easily have consistent advantage through positioning and athletics checks, so is archery really that much of an issue?

[coolAlias]

@Lombra Please, this isn't a discussion about whether archery is or isn't balanced compared to anything else. I am simply looking for alternative implementations of the Archery fighting style that don't involve to-hit bonuses because that will probably be easier than changing my players' perceptions. The problem for (one of) my table's players is: "I have +5/+6 to hit, but the archer has an amazing +8! That doesn't seem fair."

We track ammunition. I use copious amounts of cover as well as plenty of ranged enemies. The archer doesn't even have Sharpshooter yet and only one attack per round so they are far from reigning supreme at DPR. It's not a problem of balance between classes, it's a problem of player perception at the table.

In that light, I am looking for something roughly equivalent in terms of balance to the current +2-to-hit Archery fighting style that doesn't involve a to-hit bonus. Do you have any ideas other than repeating that archery isn't overpowered?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Yeah ignore the rules, that's a good way to play and argue about balance. And complain about things that feel too powerful because of the rules that you ignored for the sake of "fun" that now make the game less "fun" for those who are not gaining benefits from the ignorance of those rules. I don't get why you wouldn't track weight and ammunitions. It's part of the game and balances out the other benefits like archery and dumped strength characters. If you want to play a ranged character with unlimited ammunitions either you play a warlock or you talk to your DM and plan for a magic item later on, ignoring the "tedious" ammo tracking is not contributing to the fun of the table in this case.

It really doesn't. Buying ammunition is trivial. 1 GP is twenty arrows - given that you can recover half your expended ammunition after a fight (PHB 146), this should easily last a low level character 4-5 fights at least. A first level character has at least 5gp spare from his background which he can happily spend on buying enough ammunition for the first few adventures. Beyond that, keeping stocked with ammunition is pocket change. Even in the most extreme 'survival' style campaign where the characters have absolutely no contact with civilisation, anyone with the correct tool proficiency (easily acquired by background) can easily supply themselves with ammunition if they have access to wood and stone (i.e. virtually anywhere - even the Underdark has zurkhwood) - one day's crafting can produce up to 100 arrows or bolts.

Weight is also barely a consideration. Even someone who has dumped strength to 8 will have a carrying capacity of 120 pounds. 20 arrows weigh 1 pound, 20 bolts 1.5 pounds. Sparing merely 5% will allow them to carry 120 arrows or 80 bolts, more than enough for multiple full adventuring days. In actuality, they will likely be able to carry far more than this, as they are not weighed down by heavy armour. And that's not counting in assistance from horses, mules, bags of holding, or Barbarians.

In short, dealing with the weight and expense of ammunition is, by design, trivial. It is not in any way intended to 'balance' archers any more than the requirement of a component pouch or focus is meant to balance casters. Outside of extreme survival campaigns, you add absolutely nothing to the game by tracking it. All you do is waste your time and the time of those around you.

Returning to the topic, how would switching archery to +2 damage, a la dueling, work out?

[coolAlias]

Edited the OP to include a list of ideas so far.

I really like Easy_Lee's idea and have modified it slightly to keep it more in line with TWF's action economy:

ARCHERY
When you take the Attack action with a ranged weapon that does not have the loading property, you may make one additional attack with that weapon as a bonus action. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

I also made it a little more general - it applies to any ranged weapon without the loading property, though in the PHB that's only bows and the sling. I think this benefit would be pretty useful and make archers feel good, while not causing any perception of imbalance among players.

[Vaz]

Perhaps giving the +2 Bonus to hit to the Archer only if it continues to attack the same target as before. It means it loses the ability to snap shot a super accurate attack on the other side of the map to where he's been shooting. Also, perhaps limit it to if it does not move.

Archery Fighting Style: If you do not make a Move Action after making an attack with a Ranged Weapon, you gain +2 to on any further attack rolls you make against the same target. This bonus lasts until either you move or choose another creature as the target of your attack.

[DanyBallon]

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if someone already suggested this

On the basis that the actual Archery fighting style allow the mitigation of half-cover (+2 to hit vs +2 AC), and we don't want to step on the toes of Sharpshooter that removes cover, then what about if the Archery fighting style gave you advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have cover? Advantage is often seen as giving +5 to a roll, but since it will happen only vs cover, it's a bit less effective and won't be used as often as a base +2 to hit. The downside, is that if the character gets the Sharpshooter feat, then he gets a relative +5 bonus to hit on all his attack rolls vs creatures behind cover (or one could argue that since SS ignores cover, then the new Archery wouldn't apply...)

[Vaz]

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if someone already suggested this

On the basis that the actual Archery fighting style allow the mitigation of half-cover (+2 to hit vs +2 AC), and we don't want to step on the toes of Sharpshooter that removes cover, then what about if the Archery fighting style gave you advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have cover? Advantage is often seen as giving +5 to a roll, but since it will happen only vs cover, it's a bit less effective and won't be used as often as a base +2 to hit. The downside, is that if the character gets the Sharpshooter feat, then he gets a relative +5 bonus to hit on all his attack rolls vs creatures behind cover (or one could argue that since SS ignores cover, then the new Archery wouldn't apply...)

Free Advantage seems even more abuseable. And you shouldn't become a better archer just because it's in cover.

[qube]

how about aiming?


Archery:
At the start of your turn, you can give up your movement and bonus action, and chose to do a single attack action with a ranged weapon. if you do, the first ranged attack of that attack action has advantage.

top of my head

doesn't stack with other things that give advantage
more powerful on lower level, but less scaling (fist attack only vs +2 on all attacks (be it extra attack or action surge)
could combo multiclass rogue to get sneak attack ... but by the time they can multiclass (lvl2), a pure rogue archer can bonus action stealth anyway to get advantage.
not stackable with spells, as spells don't use the attack action, but cast a spell action

[Lombra]

@Lombra Please, this isn't a discussion about whether archery is or isn't balanced compared to anything else. I am simply looking for alternative implementations of the Archery fighting style that don't involve to-hit bonuses because that will probably be easier than changing my players' perceptions. The problem for (one of) my table's players is: "I have +5/+6 to hit, but the archer has an amazing +8! That doesn't seem fair."

We track ammunition. I use copious amounts of cover as well as plenty of ranged enemies. The archer doesn't even have Sharpshooter yet and only one attack per round so they are far from reigning supreme at DPR. It's not a problem of balance between classes, it's a problem of player perception at the table.

In that light, I am looking for something roughly equivalent in terms of balance to the current +2-to-hit Archery fighting style that doesn't involve a to-hit bonus. Do you have any ideas other than repeating that archery isn't overpowered?

Then I totally missed the point of the discussion. If a player complains about others having a bigger bonus than his, I would talk to the player a lot to make him understand that this is a cooperative ad not competitive game, but presuming that this has been done and didn't work, and even if I think that the situation is ridiculous without considering any real life problems that I ignore that that player may have, I would suggest to change archery to:
-not get penalized when the target is half-covered
-"advantage" on the weapon's damage roll on a clear shot (by advantage I mean something like savage attacker that only works with the weapon's damage die, to prevent sneak attack shenanigans)

It keeps the same half cover utility and compensates the damage that you would lose without the added accuracy in my opinion.

[Lombra]

It really doesn't. Buying ammunition is trivial. 1 GP is twenty arrows - given that you can recover half your expended ammunition after a fight (PHB 146), this should easily last a low level character 4-5 fights at least. A first level character has at least 5gp spare from his background which he can happily spend on buying enough ammunition for the first few adventures. Beyond that, keeping stocked with ammunition is pocket change. Even in the most extreme 'survival' style campaign where the characters have absolutely no contact with civilisation, anyone with the correct tool proficiency (easily acquired by background) can easily supply themselves with ammunition if they have access to wood and stone (i.e. virtually anywhere - even the Underdark has zurkhwood) - one day's crafting can produce up to 100 arrows or bolts.

Weight is also barely a consideration. Even someone who has dumped strength to 8 will have a carrying capacity of 120 pounds. 20 arrows weigh 1 pound, 20 bolts 1.5 pounds. Sparing merely 5% will allow them to carry 120 arrows or 80 bolts, more than enough for multiple full adventuring days. In actuality, they will likely be able to carry far more than this, as they are not weighed down by heavy armour. And that's not counting in assistance from horses, mules, bags of holding, or Barbarians.

In short, dealing with the weight and expense of ammunition is, by design, trivial. It is not in any way intended to 'balance' archers any more than the requirement of a component pouch or focus is meant to balance casters. Outside of extreme survival campaigns, you add absolutely nothing to the game by tracking it. All you do is waste your time and the time of those around you.

Returning to the topic, how would switching archery to +2 damage, a la dueling, work out?

Weight and price weren't even the point of the discussion, it was numbers (and the fact that 100 arrows are not gonna fit anywhere on your person, despite weight). I don't know how many attacks one makes but in an adventuring day filled with fights only a fighter can very well make up to 50 attacks, each of them needing an arrow, and if he can't restock at the end of the day he's gonna be in trouble. Frontliners track their HP, since ranged characters tend to need to update it less often, they get arrows and bolts to track.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Weight and price weren't even the point of the discussion, it was numbers (and the fact that 100 arrows are not gonna fit anywhere on your person, despite weight).

Au contraire:

Proficient archers... should have two quivers each, one with forty arrows, the other with sixty, as well as two bows each, four bowstrings and small handheld shields, swords girded at their waists, and axes, and they must likewise carry slings in their belt.
And that's without outside assistance, like using your horse, mule, bag of holding or Barbarian to store some extra quivers.

I don't know how many attacks one makes but in an adventuring day filled with fights only a fighter can very well make up to 50 attacks, each of them needing an arrow
Not at low levels he won't. Furthermore, given that one can recover half of ammunition expended at the end of a battle, each attack will need somewhat less than 1 arrow in the long run (admittedly, there will be fights where some or all arrows cannot be recovered for various reasons, but these will likely be a minority).

Frontliners track their HP, since ranged characters tend to need to update it less often, they get arrows and bolts to track.
Yes, that would be why the majority of the 'ranged' character options in the game use attack methods (i.e. magic) that do not require such tracking.

[Lombra]

Au contraire:

And that's without outside assistance, like using your horse, mule, bag of holding or Barbarian to store some extra quivers.

Not at low levels he won't. Furthermore, given that one can recover half of ammunition expended at the end of a battle, each attack will need somewhat less than 1 arrow in the long run (admittedly, there will be fights where some or all arrows cannot be recovered for various reasons, but these will likely be a minority).

Yes, that would be why the majority of the 'ranged' character options in the game use attack methods (i.e. magic) that do not require such tracking.


Take my silence as a trophy if you want, I just can't be heard from you appearently.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Take my silence as a trophy if you want, I just can't be heard from you appearently.

Sorry, I literally have no idea what you mean.

[Grod_The_Giant]

ARCHERY
When you take the Attack action with a ranged weapon that does not have the loading property, you may make one additional attack with that weapon as a bonus action. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
While I haven't crunched any numbers, that seems drastically better than other styles.

[Easy_Lee]

While I haven't crunched any numbers, that seems drastically better than other styles.

In theory, it's 1D8 worth of difference. That's roughly equivalent to the bonus damage added by TWF, and the number of attacks is also the same. Dueling adds up to 10 damage per round on a maxed fighter getting his reaction. But early on and for other classes, dueling only adds 4-6.

That said, TWF requires the bonus action and scales with STR/DEX.

[coolAlias]

While I haven't crunched any numbers, that seems drastically better than other styles.
I admit it does seem nice, but it's roughly equivalent to two-weapon fighting yet with no way to get the ability modifier to damage, so it's actually worse as far as damage output is concerned, with the advantage that you are attacking at range.

It's also similar to Crossbow Expert's bonus attack with hand crossbows.

I think that requiring the bonus action for the attack is what makes the style fall in line with everything else - Rangers, for example, have a lot of stuff they want to use their bonus action for, but they won't be able to do those AND get a bonus attack, same as if they were wielding two weapons.

[Nifft]

I've been trying to think of ways to get rid if the -5/+10 feature.

Here's my current thinking:

Archery Style: You can use your bonus action to make a single ranged weapon attack.

Sharpshooter Feat: You can spend a bonus action to aim at a specific target, in one of two ways:
Arcing Aim - Choose one target. Your ranged weapon attacks at long range don't have disadvantage against that target.
Careful Aim - Choose one target. Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover against that target.

Additionally, the first time you hit the target at which you Aimed with a ranged weapon attack this turn, your attack deals +10 damage.

== == ==

What's good about this?
- PCs who are not V-Humans can still be great archers before level 4.
- Archery style and Sharpshooter both provide benefits, and you'll get value out of both if you have both, but the incremental value of having both is lower. Having both isn't a straightforward power-up.

[DanyBallon]

Free Advantage seems even more abuseable. And you shouldn't become a better archer just because it's in cover.


I have to disagree, if we consider the archery modification I suggested:

- you get only advantage when the target has cover, far from being free advantage all the time (if you fear for MC Fighter/Rogue abuse, just add that you can't get sneak attack from having advantage in this condition)

- by selecting archery, you are not being suddenly a better archer when facing target with cover. Your speciality is having better odds to hit such target than someone who don't have archery.

- It should be noted that having advantage is considered roughly as having +5, but it's only an estimation, it's often lower than that and can be cancelled out by disadvantage, while a flat +2 to hit is always a +2 increase.

- lastly, the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic as described in the PHB, leads to beleive that it can/should be use to replace circumstancial bonus, which is exactly I'm trying to do by removing the +2 flat bonus (which intent is to negate half-cover malus) by a circumstancial mean to have better odds than the norm vs a specific type of target.