My DM "fixed" Spell Sniper

[Dalebert]

We had some discussion and agreed SS is a weak feat. It just needs a little something to be worth taking. Most of the benefits just rarely come up for the primary intended recipients (at least initially): warlocks.

1) How often do you need more than 120 ft? Besides often being in tight spaces, most DMs don't want to give you the opportunity to snipe at enemies coming from far away, either with EB or longbows.
2) Ignoring cover: Not sure what to say but that this just seems extremely rare. If there are multiple enemies, odds are good at least one is exposed
3) Extra attack cantrip: warlocks already have EB. It's a good attack cantrip for anyone but what makes it exceptional are invocations so it's hardly worth a feat.

Note that I qualified this with "initially" because then SCAG introduced Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade and this feat is needed to use them with a reach weapon. I think the feat should be judged based on the time and context of its creation. It still feels like a costly feat tax just for this one use.

My DM's fix: it gives touch spells a range of 10 ft. He doesn't restrict it to attacks which doesn't seem to quite fit the theme but also doesn't seem broken to me.

My first thought: package it with +1 to int, wis, or cha.

What would you do? "Nothing" is of course allowed with justification.

[ImproperJustice]

IMHO: Spell Sniper is a fine feat and a favorite pick of the Eldritch Knights in our parties.

I am wondering if your not already working on another feat altogether.

A half feat that gives touch spells a range of 30’ and maybe some other benefit?

[SpanielBear]

Yeah, have to say after a year of playing a Tomelock, spellsniper has been excellent as is. Ignoring cover is huge if there is any terrain of note, as it means you can snipe who you want, not just targets of opportunity. Double range may be overkill on eldritch blast, but comes into its own with shorter range spells- chill touch and vine whip have been regular go-to’s because of the rider abilities. And for a warlock, more cantrips mean less pressure on your spell-slots.

It’s a good feat.

[Dalebert]

I still have never taken it with several warlocks. Haven't been able to justify against other options. It feel like when I have all I need I'd still just grab Lucky instead. I've only ever considered it for BB with a reach weapon but even that has remained theoretical so far and still seems expensive.

But does anyone see it as anything but a warlock feat? If not, then caster feat options seem very limited in general. Besides warlocks, I feel most casters largely abandon cantrips at higher levels and there are so few powerful attack spells.

[Vogie]

I mean it's weak when compared to something like Lucky, but stellar compared to something like Durable. It's essentially "Magic Sharpshooter"

In addition to the above comments, the ability to use the SCAG trips at a 10 ft range with a whip, halberd or glaive is ridiculous as well.

[Dalebert]

I mean it's weak when compared to something like Lucky, but stellar compared to something like Durable. It's essentially "Magic Sharpshooter"


Now that you mention that, you reminded me of something that does actually come up fairly often for warlocks. If the feat also let you cast ranged attack spells without disadvantage when an enemy is adjacent, I think that'd be about right. Essentially what Crossbow expert gives you but only with spells.

[Chronos]

Why would this be regarded as "intended for warlocks"? They already have other ways of increasing the range of Eldritch Blast, if that's something they want.

[ImproperJustice]

It’s a common pick for Wizards and EKs in our groups. An extra damage type cantrip, improved accuracy and range is always a handy tool.
In late game play cantrips are often better options than low level spell slots.

[Man_Over_Game]

Don't forget that creatures, including allies, count as Half-Cover.

Spell Sniper might as well say "You get +2 to hit enemies that aren't the boss" (assuming people are actually using the Cover rules as intended).

[Dalebert]

It’s a common pick for Wizards and EKs in our groups. An extra damage type cantrip, improved accuracy and range is always a handy tool.
In late game play cantrips are often better options than low level spell slots.

Concede the last sentence. Still more of a backup plan for when some other option just isn't available. In my years of AL play several times a week, don't recall ever seeing it taken.

To the earlier question of why do I see it as a warlock feat--they're the only ones who use cantrips well enough or frequently enough in higher tiers to maybe justify it. Few powerful spells are attacks.

[Kyutaru]

Don't forget that creatures, including allies, count as Half-Cover.

Spell Sniper might as well say "You get +2 to hit enemies that aren't the boss" (assuming people are actually using the Cover rules as intended).

This. Play D&D video games and you'll get annoyed by how often creatures have cover. They give it to each other. Heck your own frontline ally gives it to them (another way the Man is keeping the Martial down!) which means unless you don't care which enemy you shoot then ignoring cover is a blessing.

[DarkKnightJin]

If it allowed me to ignore enemies within 5ft for ranged spell attacks like Crossbow Expert does, I'd like Spell Sniper more.
I might even be willing to trade off learning a cantrip or the doubled range bulletpoint for it. The ignoring cover is part of the 'sniper' monniker, so ditching that would defeat the purpose of the feat. Might as well get XBE at that point.

[Laserlight]

But does anyone see it as anything but a warlock feat? If not, then caster feat options seem very limited in general. Besides warlocks, I feel most casters largely abandon cantrips at higher levels and there are so few powerful attack spells.

When I played a DEX Tempest cleric, I would have taken SS as my staring feat and picked up Booming Blade for a whip if I had thought of it.

"Ignores cover" is useful if you want to shoot the casters in the back, rather than the minions and tanks in front.

[Dalebert]

Folks online don't seem to match my IRL experience. I have no explanation for it. I play SO much D&D, mostly but not totally through AL, and I just never see anyone taking or using this and never have myself. There's just always something I would rather have.

[Great Dragon]

If it allowed me to ignore enemies within 5ft for ranged spell attacks like Crossbow Expert does, I'd like Spell Sniper more.
I might even be willing to trade off learning a cantrip or the doubled range bulletpoint for it.

I think I'll try that "Trade Cantrip for ignoring enemies within 5 feet for ranged spell attacks." For my games.

While the Double Range on a "Sniper Warlock" (600 feet!!) can be a bit much - like Dalebert pointed out, ranges beyond 120 feet is rarely needed.

I find that it's great for my Casters with:
Fire Bolt, Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray, etc.

[Willie the Duck]

But does anyone see it as anything but a warlock feat? If not, then caster feat options seem very limited in general. Besides warlocks, I feel most casters largely abandon cantrips at higher levels and there are so few powerful attack spells.

I have never met anyone who does consider it a warlock feat. They already have an invocation which increases their range. If the feat doesn't seem all that impressive on a class that already has an avenue to do half of what the feat does, perhaps it is a problem of expectations more than anything else.

I don't think casters, as a whole, abandon cantrips at higher levels. Clerics in particular often blast along with their spiritual weapons/guardians rather than swinging a mace (particularly if they are arcana/light/knowledge types and get +wis at 8th level). Draconic sorcerers do pretty well as well. Regardless, the overall likelihood of a non-warlock casting cantrips is going to be related to how often they need to conserve their slot-depleting spells, and that's going to relate to how well the DM moderate the 15 min. workday.

Regarding caster feats being very limited, I guess it depends on what you mean. Spell sniper, Ritual Caster, and Magic Initiate are feats that casters or non-casters can pick up to improve their casting. War Caster is a clear and obvious caster feat, and given how concentration works, Resilient:con is effectively a hidden caster feat. That's five feats. Compare that to two-weapon fighting, which has two feats specific to it (I guess Mobility is a stealth third one as well).

Overall, I feel that casters 1)don't need feats to do their job well, 2) benefit greatly from purely pumping up their caster stats, 3) are almost inherently more MAD than others (they will still need Con and Dex [or Str if heavy armor cleric] like everyone else, plus the casting stat), and 4) because they don't really need any caster-specific feats, get to take some of the general feats like Healer, Inspiring Leader, Alert, and so on which flesh out and expand a character's abilities. Usually what I hear are complaints that the fighter needs to take feats to keep up, and thus, despite being theoretically less MAD and getting more feats, never gets to take the flavor- or option-expanding feats.

[Aaron Underhand]

Does no one take EB on a paladin for a ranged option?

[Seclora]

The range can be really good in the right, albeit rare, circumstances, letting a Warlock hit targets only an archer could hit otherwise. I can't speak for other DMs, but there have certainly been times in my campaigns where my players have gotten a lot of use out of shooting riders off of eagles or Airships with an Eldritch Lance+Spell Sniper+Repelling Blast combo.

That being said though, I use Spell Sniper a lot more often to give non-Warlock casters Eldritch Blast. A High Elf or Vhuman with Magic Initiate who takes Firebolt or Shocking Grasp qualifies for Spell Sniper right out of the gate, and even without Agonizing Blast Eldritch Blast is a phenomenal cantrip.

[dejarnjc]

Don't forget that creatures, including allies, count as Half-Cover.

Spell Sniper might as well say "You get +2 to hit enemies that aren't the boss" (assuming people are actually using the Cover rules as intended).

It's useful for that but in my experience tiers 3 and 4 usually involve a hefty number of creatures that are huge or gargantuan and positioning to get a clear shot is generally easy except in tight corners so it becomes less of an issue pretty quickly.

[Yunru]

Folks online don't seem to match my IRL experience. I have no explanation for it. I play SO much D&D, mostly but not totally through AL, and I just never see anyone taking or using this and never have myself. There's just always something I would rather have.

The majority of people who don't bother with it also probably don't bother with the thread, hence the seeming disparity.

[DarkKnightJin]

Does no one take EB on a paladin for a ranged option?

I grabbed Chill Touch and Mage Hand, along with Hex, for my Naga Paladin. Mostly because I don't think that Eldritch Blast out of nowhere would be very thematically fitting. Chill Touch I've flavored as him conjuring up a spectral snake at the target instead of a hand, and then biting them with said snake to deliver a 'poison'. Which explains why they can't regain HP for a turn, either.

Of course, I'm considering 1-3 levels of Celestial Warlock down the line, so I'd get EB anyway..

[MaxWilson]

We had some discussion and agreed SS is a weak feat. It just needs a little something to be worth taking. Most of the benefits just rarely come up for the primary intended recipients (at least initially): warlocks.

1) How often do you need more than 120 ft? Besides often being in tight spaces, most DMs don't want to give you the opportunity to snipe at enemies coming from far away, either with EB or longbows.
2) Ignoring cover: Not sure what to say but that this just seems extremely rare. If there are multiple enemies, odds are good at least one is exposed
3) Extra attack cantrip: warlocks already have EB. It's a good attack cantrip for anyone but what makes it exceptional are invocations so it's hardly worth a feat.

Note that I qualified this with "initially" because then SCAG introduced Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade and this feat is needed to use them with a reach weapon. I think the feat should be judged based on the time and context of its creation. It still feels like a costly feat tax just for this one use.

My DM's fix: it gives touch spells a range of 10 ft. He doesn't restrict it to attacks which doesn't seem to quite fit the theme but also doesn't seem broken to me.

My first thought: package it with +1 to int, wis, or cha.

What would you do? "Nothing" is of course allowed with justification.

I would address points #1 and #2 by using more complicated battlespaces more often. One of them should be applicable in almost every battle. Either you're in a fairly open area, which means you should have at least the opportunity to spot enemies coming from a long ways away and/or spread the party out over a larger area, or else you're in a fairly constrained area where total or partial cover (furniture, rubble, corpses of large monsters, etc.) should be scattered across the battlefield. The only case I can think of where neither should apply at all is when you're in a labyrinth of some kind, surrounded by walls (total cover) but with nothing on the ground to provide partial cover. Even a cave should probably have stalagmites and stalactites.

So if your players are bored with spell sniper, don't change the feat, fix your adventures.


But does anyone see it as anything but a warlock feat? If not, then caster feat options seem very limited in general. Besides warlocks, I feel most casters largely abandon cantrips at higher levels and there are so few powerful attack spells.

No, I agree that it's mostly a warlock thing. If a wizard wants to do damage behind partial cover he probably just takes Toll the Dead, which is a Wisdom save and so unaffected by total cover. I've never seen a non-warlock take it.


The majority of people who don't bother with it also probably don't bother with the thread, hence the seeming disparity.

Heh. Good point.

[BloodOgre]

I too agree that Spell Sniper is weak as a feat. I would also like to see it more equally match Sharp shooter (take a -5 on attack to gain a +10 bonus to damage) or Crossbow expert (ignore disadvantage to cast a ranged spell at an adjacent enemy) or the Sorcerer's Distant Spell Metamagic (cast a touch spell out to 30 feet, even if it were limited to a cantrip OR to a limited number of times, level or stat bonus, per short/long rest).

One of the other things that weakens Spell Sniper is that neither clerics nor bards have any cantrips that require an attack roll, and druid has only Thorn Whip. And while a bard may have a decent CHA, meaning a Warlock or Sorcerer cantrips are good options, Druids and Clerics are likely to be deficient in either or both CHA and INT. I had not considered that Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade were options for WIS-based casters, but that really only works if your Druid or Cleric wants to be a front line fighter and deal melee damage. For a cleric, at least, the big drawback is that it only doubles the range of attack roll spells. I'd want it to double the range of healing word and my spells that require a saving throw, too, as I don't have much in the way of attack roll spells, Guiding Bolt, at 1st level, being the exception, unless you are a Light Cleric (Scorching ray). So, for a Cleric, the only reason to take spell sniper is to get booming blade or green flame blade, and there are probably better ways of doing that.

But seriously, I could go on about how unbalanced many of the feats are. (EDIT) Particularly the LACK of feats aimed at casters. (/EDIT)

[Tanarii]

Spell Sniper is not a weak feat. It's one of the top tier feats. Getting rid of cover is fantastic in dungeon or complex environments, extra range is useful in many outdoor encounters, especially against flyers, and Shocking Grasp is always useful to pick up as a get out of crappy situations Cantrip.

[Dalebert]

Spell Sniper is not a weak feat. It's one of the top tier feats. Getting rid of cover is fantastic in dungeon or complex environments, extra range is useful in many outdoor encounters, especially against flyers, and Shocking Grasp is always useful to pick up as a get out of crappy situations Cantrip.

For warlocks. Again, for most casters, their cantrips aren't worth a feat. I think a feat should be designed to be worthwhile to more than one class. Even then, it only makes sense if you're having trouble hitting or getting in range. These haven't been issues for any of my warlocks. I've played three.

I think that's why it feels week. If there were some powerful spells that were attack based, you might consider a feat that would increase your chance to land them so you don't just end up wasting a spell slot. But if you're talking throw away crappy cantrips anyway, you don't care that much. Non-warlocks are just tossing out a cantrip just to be doing something when their options are limited. Those rounds they're not keeping up with anyone on dmg.

Another fix besides giving the cantrip something would be giving casters attack spells that make it worthwhile.

[MaxWilson]

Another fix besides giving the cantrip something would be giving casters attack spells that make it worthwhile.

I 100% agree with this one.

Note that Spell Sniper (technically) does boost Bigby's Hand already. You could make other spells similar to it but with different flavor. I'd also be in favor of making Conjure Volley attack roll-based instead of saving throw-based.

[Tanarii]

Wizards and Sorcs have Firebolt, Chill Touch, and Ray of Frost.

Druids have Produce Flame & Thorn Whip. Both of which doubling range is great, and you get one for free with the feat.

For Sorcs & Bards, it has the benefit of choosing Eldritch Blast as the extra Cantrip.

Spell sniper works with Chromatic Orb, Ray of Sickness, Guiding Bolt, and Melf's Acid Arrow, all of which can be upcast if a longer ranged higher level spell is needed.

Honorable mention, it also works with Witch Bolt :smallamused:

I can see where it might be a feat that caused buyers remorse for some classes, if you're playing a 20 level campaign, or one which turns out to have fewer encounters per Long Rest.

[Dalebert]

I can see where it might be a feat that caused buyers remorse for some classes, if you're playing a 20 level campaign, or one which turns out to have fewer encounters per Long Rest.

You left off Scorching Ray. Anyway, I'm aware of the attack spells. I can't really argue personal judgment but they're just not that good, even when upcast. You're usually much better off just casting a higher level spell than upcasting those. And then it won't be an attack spell. None of them compete with a warlock just casting agonizing EB, and particularly if they have other invocation effects tacked on.

[Great Dragon]

One thing I was wondering was:
Would you consider things that Impede/Block vision like Fog Cloud or Darkness (even non Magical sources without Darkvision/Blindsight) giving Disadvantage even against Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter?
Because it actually makes "seeing" the Target lots harder?

Note: Darkness (either magic or natural) would make even more focus on Warlocks with Devil's Sight.

Or, scale it up a little, and make Creatures inside (more then five feet from the Edge) those being treated as being "Invisible"? First, guess the actual location of the target. Next, roll with Disadvantage.
DM does not tell if you missed because you rolled too low, or because of wrong location.

This would work even against Warlocks.

[MaxWilson]

One thing I was wondering was:
Would you consider things that Impede/Block vision be like Fog Cloud or Darkness giving Disadvantage even against Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter?
Because it actually makes "seeing" the Target lots harder?

Of course. That's exactly what the rules say to do anyway. Heavy obscurement prevents you from seeing whatever is obscured by it, which causes disadvantage. Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper doesn't change that.


Or, scale it up a little, and make Creatures inside (more then five feet from the Edge) those being treated as being "Invisible"? First, guess the actual location of the target. Next, roll with Disadvantage.
DM does not tell if you missed because you rolled too low, or because of wrong location.

Usually this would require the creatures inside to Hide, although I can imagine doing so without a Hide action if it the environment is very noisy or if it's far enough away that you couldn't reasonable hear what they're doing (100 yards?).

[Great Dragon]

Of course. That's exactly what the rules say to do anyway. Heavy obscurement prevents you from seeing whatever is obscured by it, which causes disadvantage. Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper doesn't change that.

I thought so, thanks for confirming that.


Usually this would require the creatures inside to Hide, although I can imagine doing so without a Hide action if it the environment is very noisy or if it's far enough away that you couldn't reasonable hear what they're doing (100 yards?).

I am so going to use some kind of Evil Humanoids (Goblins on Wolves) in a Misty Area (Either Forest or Swamp) and watch the shinagines of opposed Stealth vs Perception (hearing) for (Disadvantage) Range Attacks on both sides!!!

I figure start at 100 feet out, and Perception (sight) being possible at 30 feet?

[DarkKnightJin]

I think I'll try that "Trade Cantrip for ignoring enemies within 5 feet for ranged spell attacks." For my games.

Let us know how that works out, because Ii thought that up in like, 10 seconds.

[MaxWilson]

I am so going to use some kind of Evil Humanoids (Goblins on Wolves) in a Misty Area (Either Forest or Swamp) and watch the shinagines of opposed Stealth vs Perception (hearing) for (Disadvantage) Range Attacks on both sides!!!

I figure start at 100 feet out, and Perception (sight) being possible at 30 feet?

Sounds totally reasonable.

[Great Dragon]

Let us know how that works out, because Ii thought that up in like, 10 seconds.

Sure... Might be awhile, since none of the groups that I'm in (5th) or running (2nd and 5th) are near a Class ASI Level......
*If we get enough people to show up for the 12th level ToA game, there's a small chance someone will bring in/create a Caster that takes it. But, since I'm not the DM, will most likely not have the "no Disadvantage to ranged spell attacks" part.*
Soo.... Yeah.


Sounds totally reasonable.
Awesome !!!

[MrStabby]

I have seen it play well on a strength based tiefling swashbuckler - although it was a short campaign.

It gave a good ranged option to a PC that was missing one and opened up some more options against hard to reach enemies that they couldn't grapple.

Not the best feat, but not terrible either. I think at about the right level.

[Vogie]

For warlocks. Again, for most casters, their cantrips aren't worth a feat. I think a feat should be designed to be worthwhile to more than one class. Even then, it only makes sense if you're having trouble hitting or getting in range. These haven't been issues for any of my warlocks. I've played three.

I think that's why it feels week. If there were some powerful spells that were attack based, you might consider a feat that would increase your chance to land them so you don't just end up wasting a spell slot. But if you're talking throw away crappy cantrips anyway, you don't care that much. Non-warlocks are just tossing out a cantrip just to be doing something when their options are limited. Those rounds they're not keeping up with anyone on dmg.

Another fix besides giving the cantrip something would be giving casters attack spells that make it worthwhile.

Not just Warlocks - Paladins, Rangers, and the subclass casters (4EM, EK, AT). Because the only requirement is the ability to cast a single spell, any of the races that have a spellcasting element also open up non-casting classes. Having your MtoF Tiefling Barbarian grab a ranged damaging cantrip is really useful later game when they won't reliably have magic javelins or handaxes.

[MrStabby]

Not just Warlocks - Paladins, Rangers, and the subclass casters (4EM, EK, AT). Because the only requirement is the ability to cast a single spell, any of the races that have a spellcasting element also open up non-casting classes. Having your MtoF Tiefling Barbarian grab a ranged damaging cantrip is really useful later game when they won't reliably have magic javelins or handaxes.

Some non casting classes have spells as well. Totem Barbarians, Shadow Monks. Other feats can add magic like ritual casting or magic initiate as well as some racial feats.