Those are actually RAW interactions. Each of sharpshooter, sneak attack, and archery say that their attacks must use a ranged (or in the case of sneak attack it could also be certain melee) weapons, rather than saying "ranged weapon attack."
It doesn't scale because it's not an attack. It's a modifier. It's buffing the damage die of the weapon it's transmuting. Weapon damage dice never scale.
If you picked up a rock and threw it, it would be a d4. Transmuted, it becomes a d6 and magical.
Same with Shillelagh. A quarterstaff, one-handed, is a d6. Transmuted, it becomes a d8 and magical.
I still think it is crap because: 1, it is only useful in ranged combat, at melee a longsword does more damage and can be used with extra attack. 2 anyone who has magic can cast a cantrip for 2d10 damage at 5th level or over for melee or ranged combat, (primal savagery/fire bolt) with twice the range. 3 even if you are at range a longbow does more damage at longer range with what is frankly a negligible cost in ammo at that level (although I agree the weight could be a problem). 4 anyone who has no magic is a brawler and will be best in melee anyway as a tank, and 5 with a range of 60 or 120 with disadvantage you aren't that far and could get to the enemy with 1 dash or 2 if you are at long range and that 1d6 is not worth the damage you can do at close range in a few turns with a longsword/greatsword/greataxe/maul unless they are so weak they will die to spellcasters before then, in which case it is not needed anyway. So unless you are in a situation where you can only engage at range, can't get close enough to attack them in melee, still need to do damage rapidly to avoid being killed, otherwise the spellcasters can just finish them off in a bit longer and it won't matter, and can't just run away and leave them there, it is not useful, the only scenario I can think of would be flying enemies with ranged attacks at 60 feet up where you can't hit them with weapons and which will chase you everywhere and are extremely dangerous and this doesn't sound like a very common scenario. I only use it for roleplay purposes, when I have characters who enjoy wielding weapons or don't like revealing their magic capability I use it as a spell for these sorts of things, but for sheer combat I think it is ok at 4 and below where the +3 or 4 makes up for the low dice roll but becomes near useless at level 5 and up where fire bolt is just objectively better.
No, volley requires 1 piece of ammo per target and this spell ends on any pieces of ammo if you cast it again, so it will only give you 1 more attack than normal, at level 11 I am sure you must have better options than 3d6+9 or 12 for an action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mitth'raw'nuruodo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those are actually RAW interactions. Each of sharpshooter, sneak attack, and archery say that their attacks must use a ranged (or in the case of sneak attack it could also be certain melee) weapons, rather than saying "ranged weapon attack."
It doesn't scale because it's not an attack. It's a modifier. It's buffing the damage die of the weapon it's transmuting. Weapon damage dice never scale.
If you picked up a rock and threw it, it would be a d4. Transmuted, it becomes a d6 and magical.
Same with Shillelagh. A quarterstaff, one-handed, is a d6. Transmuted, it becomes a d8 and magical.
I still think it is crap because: 1, it is only useful in ranged combat, at melee a longsword does more damage and can be used with extra attack. 2 anyone who has magic can cast a cantrip for 2d10 damage at 5th level or over for melee or ranged combat, (primal savagery/fire bolt) with twice the range. 3 even if you are at range a longbow does more damage at longer range with what is frankly a negligible cost in ammo at that level (although I agree the weight could be a problem). 4 anyone who has no magic is a brawler and will be best in melee anyway as a tank, and 5 with a range of 60 or 120 with disadvantage you aren't that far and could get to the enemy with 1 dash or 2 if you are at long range and that 1d6 is not worth the damage you can do at close range in a few turns with a longsword/greatsword/greataxe/maul unless they are so weak they will die to spellcasters before then, in which case it is not needed anyway. So unless you are in a situation where you can only engage at range, can't get close enough to attack them in melee, still need to do damage rapidly to avoid being killed, otherwise the spellcasters can just finish them off in a bit longer and it won't matter, and can't just run away and leave them there, it is not useful, the only scenario I can think of would be flying enemies with ranged attacks at 60 feet up where you can't hit them with weapons and which will chase you everywhere and are extremely dangerous and this doesn't sound like a very common scenario. I only use it for roleplay purposes, when I have characters who enjoy wielding weapons or don't like revealing their magic capability I use it as a spell for these sorts of things, but for sheer combat I think it is ok at 4 and below where the +3 or 4 makes up for the low dice roll but becomes near useless at level 5 and up where fire bolt is just objectively better.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo
No, volley requires 1 piece of ammo per target and this spell ends on any pieces of ammo if you cast it again, so it will only give you 1 more attack than normal, at level 11 I am sure you must have better options than 3d6+9 or 12 for an action.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo