Sharpshooter in reverse?

[msfnc]

Player has sharpshooter feat. Asks if he can reverse the -5/+10 feature. He wants +5 to hit for -10 damage. Trying to plink at a high-AC caster to force concentration checks. I let him do it (to successful result). How would you rule?

[follacchioso]

I would not allow it because +5 to hit is a lot.

Archers already have many ways to get a bonus to hit rolls: archery fighting style, bracers of archery, and much more.

Adding another +5 would be overkill. A character with a +1 bow, fighting style, bracers, would get a +10 in addition to their base stats.

[traskomancer]

Nitpicking, but Bracers of Archery don't improve chance to hit.

The average damage for a 16 DEX character firing a longbow is 7.5, which means they're extremely unlikely to hurt anything significantly at -10 damage. Even a 20 DEX character with a +1 heavy crossbow is only going to get through 1 point of damage on average. So, barring spell attacks, this actually doesn't strike me as useful. Even if it guaranteed a hit, you'd rarely get more than a few points of damage this way, so it would almost never be worthwhile. And as described, you can still miss.

I do think it's unnecessary to add any utility to Sharpshooter though, however marginal. That feat is already pushed.

[DarknessEternal]

I would not allow it because +5 to hit is a lot.

Archers already have many ways to get a bonus to hit rolls: archery fighting style, bracers of archery, and much more.

Adding another +5 would be overkill. A character with a +1 bow, fighting style, bracers, would get a +10 in addition to their base stats.

Bracers are +damage.

[Boverk]

Like the above said - 10 damage is a lot in most circumstances...I'd only really see it being an issue for battlemaster maneuver's like disarm or trip attack, or an eldritch smiting blade warlock....tank the base weapon damage to get the eldritch smite damage

[Pex]

Interesting idea on paper, not good in practice. Aside from there already existing various ways to get a bonus to hit, it sets bad precedent. Minus 10 damage doesn't matter when you don't care about the damage anyway, such as the already admitted forcing a Concentration check was what really was important. Suppose a PC acquires a magical arrow or has a class feature that applies an affliction of some kind - poison, incapacitation, death, etc. The affliction is what matters, not the damage. In this particular case, a player asking for +5/-10 is trying to get away with something, accepting the player wasn't meaning to.

[Sigreid]

Your group could just try it and see how it goes, understanding from the start that if it seems either too good or bad it won't be allowed in the future.

[stoutstien]

I wouldn't recommend it but I'd you do try it i would add a clause to prevent it working with disadvantage.

[quindraco]

Player has sharpshooter feat. Asks if he can reverse the -5/+10 feature. He wants +5 to hit for -10 damage. Trying to plink at a high-AC caster to force concentration checks. I let him do it (to successful result). How would you rule?

Absolutely not - this breaks bounded accuracy even further. What I would allow is basically Steady Aim but worse, on anyone, just as everyone has basic access to Dodge:

As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn. No matter what you roll for this attack, a hit is not a critical hit, and all damage dice result in their minimum value rather than rolling.

So assuming a level 8 20 DEX character with a heavy crossbow, this would be:

Normal: +8 to hit normal roll, 1d10+5 (11.5 on average) damage on a normal hit, 2d10+5 (16 on average) damage on a 20.
Plinking Shot: +8 to hit with advantage, 6 damage whether a 20 or not.

[MaxWilson]

Interesting idea on paper, not good in practice. Aside from there already existing various ways to get a bonus to hit, it sets bad precedent. Minus 10 damage doesn't matter when you don't care about the damage anyway, such as the already admitted forcing a Concentration check was what really was important. Suppose a PC acquires a magical arrow or has a class feature that applies an affliction of some kind - poison, incapacitation, death, etc. The affliction is what matters, not the damage. In this particular case, a player asking for +5/-10 is trying to get away with something, accepting the player wasn't meaning to.

Another example: DMG Disarm doesn't care about damage.

You should just tell the player "No, sorry. It doesn't work that way."

[Mastikator]

The battle master maneuver Precision Attack does this already, kinda. You add a superiority dice after the d20 is rolled and before the hit/miss is declared. The fighting style Superior Technique and the feat Martial Adept both give access to this maneuver. (Or just become a battle master, it's an absolutely stellar sub class for the fighter).

IMO the game already has this option just in a different form.

[MrStabby]

Absolutely I would allow it. Sharpshooter is a massivly underpowered feat and ranged combat in general is poor. I think we need to offer suuport to those players taking these sub-par options and extra flexability/utility like this helps bring them in line with the other power-options they could have taken.

[Thunderous Mojo]

As an Ad Hoc ruling, I think it is probably fine.

The magic in an Arrow of Dragon Slaying, alas, doesn't increase the arrow's accuracy; so if a player asked for this, and spent Inspiration, I might consider it if the PC was attempting to shoot a rampaging Smaug.

The Hobbit kinda sucks if:Bard misses 'The Shot' and has to rummage through burning Lake Town to see if they can salvage the arrow.
Making difficult shots, is what real life Sharpshooters do.

Now if the player wants to Invert the Sharpshooter feat, all the time, as an extra feature added to the feat.....nah..ain't going to happen.

[mucat]

Sharpshooter in reverse?
My first thought was, "So, 'target'?"

[Gtdead]

I'd probably allow it but wouldn't allow it to stack with advantage. It's either that or advantage. I can't think of many cases of how this would be abused, I'm thinking poisons perhaps, but I'd limit it just in case to avoid burning through an enemy's legendary resistances in a cheesy way.

[TyGuy]

Battle master archery fighting style (+2) with precision maneuver (+1d8), dip in rogue for steady aim (advantage), dip war cleric for guided strike (+10).
Remaining levels in rogue to beef up sneak attack. But what's missing from this shenanigans?

[AHF]

You could also allow it as a separate feat or half feat if you want to try it but avoid buffing one of the very best feats in the game by giving it even more versatility and uses. Normally SS doesn’t make sense to use against a high AC opponent so it becomes useless in most but not all scenarios where the PC is at high risk of missing while using it. This inverts that by making the feat also the best option for ensuring you hit those high AC targets you would be very likely to miss on a standard shot.

[Witty Username]

Player has sharpshooter feat. Asks if he can reverse the -5/+10 feature. He wants +5 to hit for -10 damage. Trying to plink at a high-AC caster to force concentration checks. I let him do it (to successful result). How would you rule?

How are they accomplishing the increased accuracy? I would have trouble visualizing that with lower accuracy increased damage I can imagine that is vital aiming of some kind, like aiming for the head as apposed to the body, or trying to hit a breastplate at the proper angle to penetrate. I don't think the logic of that reverses as easy.
And this may be a problem on rogues, since it guarantees sneak attack landing most of the time.

[NaughtyTiger]

i guess i am in the minority, cuz i like it better than normal sharpshooter.

there are already tons of ways to pump up the toHit at range.
in most gameplay the archers would hit with the -5 penalty every time... those +10 add up fast.

if they are going to hit, i would rather them do 20 points less damage per hit (vs normal sharpshooter).

[Reach Weapon]

Normally SS doesn’t make sense to use against a high AC opponent so it becomes useless in most but not all scenarios where the PC is at high risk of missing while using it.
I can totally see the math not favoring -5/+10 quite often, or long strings of combats where distances can't even exceed the limit of a shortbow's normal range, but I find it shocking that Sharpshooter's obviation of cover would not be a regular source of feat justification at pretty much every table.

[bid]

Trying to plink at a high-AC caster to force concentration checks. I let him do it (to successful result). How would you rule?
As a rule, no.
As a cinematic move, yes.

As a DM, you should reward creativity and let your players come with new ideas. These things should not be repeatable though.

[Hytheter]

I can totally see the math not favoring -5/+10 quite often, or long strings of combats where distances can't even exceed the limit of a shortbow's normal range, but I find it shocking that Sharpshooter's obviation of cover would not be a regular source of feat justification at pretty much every table.

I suspect that many tables don't make much if any use of cover rules and especially do not pay attention to the fact that creatures provide cover for each other.


As a rule, no.
As a cinematic move, yes.

As a DM, you should reward creativity and let your players come with new ideas. These things should not be repeatable though.

I really don't understand this attitude. Unless the specific course of action is highly contextual and depends on situational factors, there's really no logical reason to say something can't be repeated. If you aren't going to allow it tomorrow, don't allow it today, otherwise you're just doing arbitrary and immersion-breaking nonsense rulings.

[gooch]

.. Minus 10 damage doesn't matter when you don't care about the damage anyway, such as the already admitted forcing a Concentration check

Hmmmm... Am I missing something here? A concentration check is only triggered by damage. A single shot at -10 is likely to do 0 damage. There is no minimum damage rule in 5e, so.... This seems like a waste of an action.

[Pex]

Hmmmm... Am I missing something here? A concentration check is only triggered by damage. A single shot at -10 is likely to do 0 damage. There is no minimum damage rule in 5e, so.... This seems like a waste of an action.

Presumably the player expects to be able to do more than 10 damage normally. He just wants the roll and hope for the best the DM rolls low. Unless the player normally does at least 22 damage the DC will be 10 whether he does 1 damage or 21.

[Jerrykhor]

I would not allow it. The problem with being lenient on these kind of rulings is that the player will think its a precedent to beg for other advantages next time, and 5e already have this problem of certain players constantly begging DM for advantage rolls and lenient rulings.

For example, the GWM user in the party might feel that he is also entitled to this ruling, and it will benefit him more since if he kills a creature, he gets to attack with Bonus Action. An enemy creature that is obviously on its last legs will mean that Attack bonuses are more important than damage.

[gooch]

True that, but we're talking a pretty narrow band of things lining up for allowing this to even be useful. We need to
- hit at -5
- do more than 10 damage to trigger a CC
- have the (presumably important) target fail a basic save, with their core stat

These seem like pretty long odds to even be worried about. Situationally useful, sure, but some of the responses seemed to imply some sort of auto concentration check.

[Pex]

I would not allow it. The problem with being lenient on these kind of rulings is that the player will think its a precedent to beg for other advantages next time, and 5e already have this problem of certain players constantly begging DM for advantage rolls and lenient rulings.

For example, the GWM user in the party might feel that he is also entitled to this ruling, and it will benefit him more since if he kills a creature, he gets to attack with Bonus Action. An enemy creature that is obviously on its last legs will mean that Attack bonuses are more important than damage.

That reasoning bugs me. I get your point in not wanting players to continuously ask to break the rules, but if you forbid players from asking anything they won't do any out of the box thinking. Say no because it's too powerful, fine, but don't say no because the player had the audacity to ask.

[Jerrykhor]

That reasoning bugs me. I get your point in not wanting players to continuously ask to break the rules, but if you forbid players from asking anything they won't do any out of the box thinking. Say no because it's too powerful, fine, but don't say no because the player had the audacity to ask.

Except there's nothing out of the box with what that player is asking. Most feats, spells and abilities are very clear in what they can or cannot do, its not discouraging a player to tell them 'no you can't do that', because it literally does not say you can. If you are thinking out of the box, you don't ask for mechanical advantages, you tell the DM what you want to do or intend to achieve, then the DM will resolve it with homebrew ruling.

IMO there's usually no middle ground for this. Allow it once and players will ask again, if you deny the 2nd guy, what's your excuse? That it was a one time thing only? Because to the players it could come off as biased.

[MrStabby]

Except there's nothing out of the box with what that player is asking. Most feats, spells and abilities are very clear in what they can or cannot do, its not discouraging a player to tell them 'no you can't do that', because it literally does not say you can. If you are thinking out of the box, you don't ask for mechanical advantages, you tell the DM what you want to do or intend to achieve, then the DM will resolve it with homebrew ruling.

IMO there's usually no middle ground for this. Allow it once and players will ask again, if you deny the 2nd guy, what's your excuse? That it was a one time thing only? Because to the players it could come off as biased.

I think it depends what they ask and how they ask. If they say "can I use feat X to do Y, which it doesn't normally support" then that is a direct mechanical expansion of the feat and I am totally onside with you there.

On the other hand if they say "I want to take some extra time to line this next shot up just right, but I wont hold the bow string quite at full tenson so I can aim the arrow better without straining myself for the long aim" then I might be tempted to allow something like this (although then it wouldn't be related to the feat but rather soemthing anyone with a bow could do, and it wouldn't transfer to crossbows.)

[Eldariel]

This seems fine. A Sharpshooter spending a single attack action to force a DC10 Concentration check? That's a pretty weak action for a martial all things considered. I'd be totally on board with allowing that for a GWM user too; you're still quite possibly dealing 0 damage and even if you don't, spending an action to force a DC10 Concentration check is way worse than just casting Magic Missile or something. Indeed, I think +5/-10 could be baseline and you could make a feat to make it +5/-5, which makes it not-terrible.

All the people saying don't allow this, think about the power level of the action requested. This is literally just "spend a whole attack to force a weak Concentration check" when you could be trying to kill said enemy instead. If your warriors aren't damaging enemy caster, well, said caster is gonna cast more spells and that's probably a net negative for the party anyways, whether the Concentration check succeeds or not. Like even if you have an Oathbow and are attacking your Oathed target, 1d8+3d6-5 (assuming 20 Dex) is doing like 10 damage on average, when under normal circumstances you'd be doing 20. The expected value WAY favours attacking normally against all but EXTREMELY high AC enemies (to the tune that you're still better off attacking normally at +9 to hit for 1d8+3d6+5 damage vs. AC 30 enemies). So this option is very niche which means it's at the very least balanced and, frankly, warriors could use all the help they can get especially since this is pretty much only relevant vs. casters (they have high ACs and hitting them for even piddly damage has at least a slight chance of doing something) and maybe to get riders like Zephyr Strike or poison or Smite to land when you're really desperate.

I'd totally make it a universal feature, not one tied to a feat though. Sharpshooter and GWM are plenty strong already; just like I let anyone attack at -5 for +5 damage, I'd let anyone attack at +5 for -10 damage (and feats can pump the -5 for +5 to -5 for +10 and I could totally see a feat to make it +5 to hit for -5 damage). That seems totally reasonable, balanced, and actually helps the handicapped parties. Plus it'd be fun to let Tiamat or some such use it on AC-tanking players.

[AHF]

I can totally see the math not favoring -5/+10 quite often, or long strings of combats where distances can't even exceed the limit of a shortbow's normal range, but I find it shocking that Sharpshooter's obviation of cover would not be a regular source of feat justification at pretty much every table.

I think you are reading my post wrong or I am not being clear. SS is amazing. It is already justified and you don’t need to use the -5/+10 to take advantage of the ability to ignore partial cover. I am focusing on the third bullet that can be turned on or off.

My point was the -5/+10 should not be used against high AC targets as it is so that third bullet of the feat becomes useless. The cover and range elements of SS remain fantastic.

But this inverts that by making the third bullet of the feat not only not useless against high AC opponents but amazing there too. For example, an opponent that requires a 17 to hit means a 20% chance to but normally but using -5/+10 means you only hit on a natural 20. But having this option to flip it to +5/-10 means you can have a 45% chance to hit on those shots giving you more than double the chance of hitting.

It converts the third bullet of an already amazing feat from one you would not use against a class of opponents because it is worse than a regular attack to one that is better.

So perhaps this should be its own feat or a half feat if you want to do it.

[AHF]

I think it depends what they ask and how they ask. If they say "can I use feat X to do Y, which it doesn't normally support" then that is a direct mechanical expansion of the feat and I am totally onside with you there.

On the other hand if they say "I want to take some extra time to line this next shot up just right, but I wont hold the bow string quite at full tenson so I can aim the arrow better without straining myself for the long aim" then I might be tempted to allow something like this (although then it wouldn't be related to the feat but rather soemthing anyone with a bow could do, and it wouldn't transfer to crossbows.)

Here the question was posed as someone wanting to use the mechanics of the feat in a different way presumably on multiple shots so without more context it sounds a lot like the first scenario.

The second situation sounds like it would be better resolved by giving advantage and justifying it by taking some penalty to damage. If you are going down this path (I am being really careful with me shot), you are really talking about a repeatable universal rule that has nothing to do with the feat. Makes me think just doing advantage is simpler and fair.

For odds it becomes increasingly more meaningful to have a flat +5 as you escalate towards needing a 20 to hit:

Need to hit // % to hit at +5 // % to hit with advantage
16 // 50% // 43.75%
17 // 45% // 36%
18 // 40% // 27.75%
19 // 35% // 19%
20 // 30% // 9%

[bid]

I really don't understand this attitude.
Narrativism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory

I'll add this about consistency: are you playing what really happened, or playing out the myth as told 100 years later?

[Eldariel]

But this inverts that by making the third bullet of the feat not only not useless against high AC opponents but amazing there too. For example, an opponent that requires a 17 to hit means a 20% chance to but normally but using -5/+10 means you only hit on a natural 20. But having this option to flip it to +5/-10 means you can have a 45% chance to hit on those shots giving you more than double the chance of hitting.

Except you're giving up, even assuming an Oathbow, a half of your damage (4,5+3*3,5+5 averages exactly 20). So even against an opponent that requires 17 or more to hit (which this game basically doesn't have; around Tier 3 you're looking at +11 to hit so this enemy would need to have way more AC than Tarrasque or Tiamat at 28), you actually wouldn't really gain any significant benefit even if they were your chosen enemy.

In short, this ability would be useless for damage. Straight-up useless. There's no enemy in the game where you'd be better off using this than just attacking normally aside from maybe PC-based Bladesinger using Shapechange for max AC or an enemy literally decked in magic gear.

[AHF]

Except you're giving up, even assuming an Oathbow, a half of your damage (4,5+3*3,5+5 averages exactly 20). So even against an opponent that requires 17 or more to hit (which this game basically doesn't have; around Tier 3 you're looking at +11 to hit so this enemy would need to have way more AC than Tarrasque or Tiamat at 28), you actually wouldn't really gain any significant benefit even if they were your chosen enemy.

In short, this ability would be useless for damage. Straight-up useless. There's no enemy in the game where you'd be better off using this than just attacking normally aside from maybe PC-based Bladesinger using Shapechange for max AC or an enemy literally decked in magic gear.

But doing damage isn’t the be all, end all. Applying poison, breaking concentration, etc. just requires a hit doing any damage. That was the express purpose of the pc here.

Again, my suggestion was for the pc to figure out a way to do a normal attack with advantage if they want this. No reason to buff SS, imo. Any Homebrew should be available to any character with or without the feat.

[Person_Man]

I allow players to take improvised actions. You describe something you want to do that is not covered in the existing rules. I tell you what roll is needed (typically an Ability Check of some kind, and I’ll allow Proficiency Bonus to be added if its remotely close to a Skill you’re proficient with) I tell you the DC, and then the effect is proportionate to how hard the DC was. (Harder DC equals more powerful effect). In addition, I purposefully try to introduce environmental factors that players can use to do improvised actions, and/or just gain Advantage on certain attacks if they’re clever.

But this doesn’t sound like that. This sounds like a player who wants to use one of the most often used rules in a different way. For that, I’d let him write up a homebrew Feat or swap out a comparable class feature. If theres going to be a repeatable benefit that’s not tied to a specific environment, there should be a reasonable cost to the character resources.

[Pex]

Except there's nothing out of the box with what that player is asking. Most feats, spells and abilities are very clear in what they can or cannot do, its not discouraging a player to tell them 'no you can't do that', because it literally does not say you can. If you are thinking out of the box, you don't ask for mechanical advantages, you tell the DM what you want to do or intend to achieve, then the DM will resolve it with homebrew ruling.

IMO there's usually no middle ground for this. Allow it once and players will ask again, if you deny the 2nd guy, what's your excuse? That it was a one time thing only? Because to the players it could come off as biased.

It's a slippery slope. Do say no because the feat doesn't allow it and it's too powerful. Don't say no because you don't want the player to ask. You tell the player to make a ST check. Now he's afraid to ask if he can apply his proficiency because of Athletics. A player wants to attack someone with his bow. Now he's afraid to ask if he can have advantage because the opponent was significantly distracted by a party member.

There's a point to not wanting a player to be constantly asking for something over and over and over for every little thing, but a DM should never make a player afraid to ask at all. Say no because the rules don't allow it, not because the player asked.

[Eldariel]

But doing damage isn’t the be all, end all. Applying poison, breaking concentration, etc. just requires a hit doing any damage. That was the express purpose of the pc here.

Again, my suggestion was for the pc to figure out a way to do a normal attack with advantage if they want this. No reason to buff SS, imo. Any Homebrew should be available to any character with or without the feat.

Yeah, I agree that it shouldn't be a part of SS. But it's niche enough that it could totally warrant supporting. Someone aids you for advantage, you try to hit an easy but secondary area in the target (essentially what this action is) and you have a slight chance at breaking enemy's Concentration. Efficient? Hell no. But sometimes it's the only option you have left.

[Chronic]

It's fine, unless the player try to blatantly exploit it, it's vastly inferior to the normal usage of the power attack.