The thing is, at higher level the AC becomes a moot issue. It comes down to how intelligently a dm plays the bad guys. One only needs to look at Tuckers Kobolds to see how the lowly kobold can strike fear into a seasoned player. If you have a barbarian with a 20 strength then you have a +7 to hit at level 1. That’s likely a 9 or more on the attack roll for most level appropriate enemies and enough damage (2d6+5) to one shot a kobold with minimum damage even without rage. So there’s no need to use GWM. As a DM you have to play them intelligently, use cover, use numbers, traps, ambushes, use terrain features to even the odds, not rely on purely mechanical bonuses or penalties to threaten the players. That -5 becomes a much bigger issue if the enemy has full cover or engaged in melee range by another enemy
The thing is, at higher level the AC becomes a moot issue. It comes down to how intelligently a dm plays the bad guys. One only needs to look at Tuckers Kobolds to see how the lowly kobold can strike fear into a seasoned player. If you have a barbarian with a 20 strength then you have a +7 to hit at level 1. That’s likely a 9 or more on the attack roll for most level appropriate enemies and enough damage (2d6+5) to one shot a kobold with minimum damage even without rage. So there’s no need to use GWM. As a DM you have to play them intelligently, use cover, use numbers, traps, ambushes, use terrain features to even the odds, not rely on purely mechanical bonuses or penalties to threaten the players. That -5 becomes a much bigger issue if the enemy has full cover or engaged in melee range by another enemy
As a DM, against a player with sharpshooter I am left with exactly one source of working cover to play with, total cover, because all other forms of cover are ignored by someone with sharpshooter. Another melee combatant only provides half cover, which is ignored.
I also feel like its a bit of a cop out to say something along the lines of 'There isnt a problem, just play your monster smarter' because you could apply that to a wide variety of different complaints. It also implies that I am already playing my monsters in a dumb way. My players are also veterans at this and are capable of playing their characters in a smart way and planning to get into advantageous positions.
There are certain abilities in 5e that are so mechanically strong that they will require a larger amount of focus in designing encounters than any others the party has, and I believe Sharpshooter specifically (because of its fairly easy +10 bonus and ability to ignore cover and disadvantage at long range) is one of them
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The thing is, at higher level the AC becomes a moot issue. It comes down to how intelligently a dm plays the bad guys. One only needs to look at Tuckers Kobolds to see how the lowly kobold can strike fear into a seasoned player. If you have a barbarian with a 20 strength then you have a +7 to hit at level 1. That’s likely a 9 or more on the attack roll for most level appropriate enemies and enough damage (2d6+5) to one shot a kobold with minimum damage even without rage. So there’s no need to use GWM. As a DM you have to play them intelligently, use cover, use numbers, traps, ambushes, use terrain features to even the odds, not rely on purely mechanical bonuses or penalties to threaten the players. That -5 becomes a much bigger issue if the enemy has full cover or engaged in melee range by another enemy
As a DM, against a player with sharpshooter I am left with exactly one source of working cover to play with, total cover, because all other forms of cover are ignored by someone with sharpshooter. Another melee combatant only provides half cover, which is ignored.
I also feel like its a bit of a cop out to say something along the lines of 'There isnt a problem, just play your monster smarter' because you could apply that to a wide variety of different complaints. It also implies that I am already playing my monsters in a dumb way. My players are also veterans at this and are capable of playing their characters in a smart way and planning to get into advantageous positions.
There are certain abilities in 5e that are so mechanically strong that they will require a larger amount of focus in designing encounters than any others the party has, and I believe Sharpshooter specifically (because of its fairly easy +10 bonus and ability to ignore cover and disadvantage at long range) is one of them
Full cover yes, but but goblins and rogues and several other bad guys can use a bonus action for some of disengage, dash, or hide. Action - fire bow, move - into cover, then bonus action - hide, this will impose disadvantage due to not knowing where the enemy is hidden. Also if a ranged attacker is within 5’ of an enemy then all ranged attacks no matter who the target is (including ranged spell attacks) are made at disadvantage.
So if your player is trying to hit ac18 with disadvantage that -5 from sharpshooter is suddenly far more significant.
One way I always think of is if I still have a positive to the roll. For instance, if I have the feat and a +4 to hit, I wouldn't use it since it would leave me with a -1 on the d20 roll. If I had a +7 instead, I wouldn't mind using it.
The thing is, at higher level the AC becomes a moot issue. It comes down to how intelligently a dm plays the bad guys. One only needs to look at Tuckers Kobolds to see how the lowly kobold can strike fear into a seasoned player. If you have a barbarian with a 20 strength then you have a +7 to hit at level 1. That’s likely a 9 or more on the attack roll for most level appropriate enemies and enough damage (2d6+5) to one shot a kobold with minimum damage even without rage. So there’s no need to use GWM. As a DM you have to play them intelligently, use cover, use numbers, traps, ambushes, use terrain features to even the odds, not rely on purely mechanical bonuses or penalties to threaten the players. That -5 becomes a much bigger issue if the enemy has full cover or engaged in melee range by another enemy
As a DM, against a player with sharpshooter I am left with exactly one source of working cover to play with, total cover, because all other forms of cover are ignored by someone with sharpshooter. Another melee combatant only provides half cover, which is ignored.
I also feel like its a bit of a cop out to say something along the lines of 'There isnt a problem, just play your monster smarter' because you could apply that to a wide variety of different complaints. It also implies that I am already playing my monsters in a dumb way. My players are also veterans at this and are capable of playing their characters in a smart way and planning to get into advantageous positions.
There are certain abilities in 5e that are so mechanically strong that they will require a larger amount of focus in designing encounters than any others the party has, and I believe Sharpshooter specifically (because of its fairly easy +10 bonus and ability to ignore cover and disadvantage at long range) is one of them
Full cover yes, but but goblins and rogues and several other bad guys can use a bonus action for some of disengage, dash, or hide. Action - fire bow, move - into cover, then bonus action - hide, this will impose disadvantage due to not knowing where the enemy is hidden. Also if a ranged attacker is within 5’ of an enemy then all ranged attacks no matter who the target is (including ranged spell attacks) are made at disadvantage.
So now we have to specifically use goblins and rogues? Not to mention that PC rogues can also hide as a bonus action, which would grant them advantage on the attack as a result of being unseen by their target. Now, their disadvantage is cancelled out. The rogue PC doesnt even need to hide if they are using the Steady Aim feature from Tashas.
It is interesting the note about melee combatants. I was under the impression the disadvantage was only against the target within 5 feet and did not know that it affects attacks against ANY target, so long as someone is within 5 feet. Thats good to know. Thanks
Edit: We probably shouldnt discuss this much further, as whether SS is overpowered or not isnt really the focus of the thread and might derail it.
One way I always think of is if I still have a positive to the roll. For instance, if I have the feat and a +4 to hit, I wouldn't use it since it would leave me with a -1 on the d20 roll. If I had a +7 instead, I wouldn't mind using it.
See, the problem with thinking of it that way is that it's not paying attention to the AC of what you're attacking. If I had a character with +4 to hit but I was attacking a zombie with an AC of 8 I'd go for it while if I had a +7 and was fighting an opponent who was wearing plate and carrying a shield (meaning his AC was at least a 20) I'd avoid it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The AC doesn’t really matter - if I’m trying to hit AC 23 then I need a bonus of +13 just to have an even chance to hit. With the -5 I would need a +18 bonus for the same chance. If I have a +19 bonus (somehow) then why not the odds are in my favor (slightly). Generally if my attack bonuses are enough that even with the -5 I need a 9 or less on the roll to hit then it’s a reasonable risk and the lower the roll I need the better the risk is.
The AC doesn’t really matter - if I’m trying to hit AC 23 then I need a bonus of +13 just to have an even chance to hit. With the -5 I would need a +18 bonus for the same chance. If I have a +19 bonus (somehow) then why not the odds are in my favor (slightly). Generally if my attack bonuses are enough that even with the -5 I need a 9 or less on the roll to hit then it’s a reasonable risk and the lower the roll I need the better the risk is.
By your own words, the AC does matter. Your attack bonus in a vacuum doesn't matter because your odds of hitting are based off your attack bonus vs the target's AC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Okay this discussion seems to warrant a bigger light on what is happening:
The thing you have to consider is the average damage you'll get when attacking with sharpshooter vs the average damage without sharpshooter - but with the chances to hit valued in.
Given that your base damage, damage with sharpshooter and to hit chances with and without sharpshooter are known constants in most cases - the only variable remaining is the enemy AC.
Generally you can say that the higher your to hit the bigger the AC to which you should use sharpshooter, while with a higher base damage it the AC to which it is worth to risk that damage is lowered.
If we put all that into a formula and solve to enemy AC we get:
16+TH-D/2>=AC
with TH= to hit bonus, D the average base damage(without sharpshooter) and AC the enemy AC up to which it would result in a better average damage to use sharpshooter.
As an example: If I use a normal light crossbow with a DEX bonus of +3 and a proficiency of +2 my to hit is +5 and my average damage is 1d8+3=7.5 piercing. Plugging all that into the formula: 16+5-7.5/2 =17,25
So if the enemys AC is 17 or lower it would result in a bigger avarage damage to use sharpshooter, while it wouldn't when hitting an enemy with AC 18 or higher.
A little caveat: this doesn't factor in massively high ACs or critical hits, which can make an impact on some of this calculation. (If the AC is so high you can't hit it without a critical hit, you can go for sharpshooter since that chance can't go down anymore etc.)
EDIT: also just to tie this into the discussion: This can mean that you should attack with sharpshooter even if it leaves you with a bad to hit: with my example from above your chance to hit versus a AC 17 enemy with sharpshooter is pretty low, since it leaves you with a 0 to hit (you'd need a 17+ to hit on the dice), but the damage you could inflict with sharpshooter pushes the average over the edge. That doesn't mean you should use sharpshooter on that one kobold with <10 hp.
Very true, and there arent alot of monsters with higher AC that merit being thrown at a party for every encounter (at least from a story standpoint).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The thing is, at higher level the AC becomes a moot issue. It comes down to how intelligently a dm plays the bad guys. One only needs to look at Tuckers Kobolds to see how the lowly kobold can strike fear into a seasoned player. If you have a barbarian with a 20 strength then you have a +7 to hit at level 1. That’s likely a 9 or more on the attack roll for most level appropriate enemies and enough damage (2d6+5) to one shot a kobold with minimum damage even without rage. So there’s no need to use GWM. As a DM you have to play them intelligently, use cover, use numbers, traps, ambushes, use terrain features to even the odds, not rely on purely mechanical bonuses or penalties to threaten the players. That -5 becomes a much bigger issue if the enemy has full cover or engaged in melee range by another enemy
An example of the math:
"Here’s an example calculation
Based on this calculation you should use it against any 20 or lower AC target if you have similar attack bonus. "
As a DM, against a player with sharpshooter I am left with exactly one source of working cover to play with, total cover, because all other forms of cover are ignored by someone with sharpshooter. Another melee combatant only provides half cover, which is ignored.
I also feel like its a bit of a cop out to say something along the lines of 'There isnt a problem, just play your monster smarter' because you could apply that to a wide variety of different complaints. It also implies that I am already playing my monsters in a dumb way. My players are also veterans at this and are capable of playing their characters in a smart way and planning to get into advantageous positions.
There are certain abilities in 5e that are so mechanically strong that they will require a larger amount of focus in designing encounters than any others the party has, and I believe Sharpshooter specifically (because of its fairly easy +10 bonus and ability to ignore cover and disadvantage at long range) is one of them
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Full cover yes, but but goblins and rogues and several other bad guys can use a bonus action for some of disengage, dash, or hide. Action - fire bow, move - into cover, then bonus action - hide, this will impose disadvantage due to not knowing where the enemy is hidden. Also if a ranged attacker is within 5’ of an enemy then all ranged attacks no matter who the target is (including ranged spell attacks) are made at disadvantage.
So if your player is trying to hit ac18 with disadvantage that -5 from sharpshooter is suddenly far more significant.
One way I always think of is if I still have a positive to the roll. For instance, if I have the feat and a +4 to hit, I wouldn't use it since it would leave me with a -1 on the d20 roll. If I had a +7 instead, I wouldn't mind using it.
So now we have to specifically use goblins and rogues? Not to mention that PC rogues can also hide as a bonus action, which would grant them advantage on the attack as a result of being unseen by their target. Now, their disadvantage is cancelled out. The rogue PC doesnt even need to hide if they are using the Steady Aim feature from Tashas.
It is interesting the note about melee combatants. I was under the impression the disadvantage was only against the target within 5 feet and did not know that it affects attacks against ANY target, so long as someone is within 5 feet. Thats good to know. Thanks
Edit: We probably shouldnt discuss this much further, as whether SS is overpowered or not isnt really the focus of the thread and might derail it.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You’re correct. It’s pointless continuing the discussion at least until you understand the basic rules.
See, the problem with thinking of it that way is that it's not paying attention to the AC of what you're attacking. If I had a character with +4 to hit but I was attacking a zombie with an AC of 8 I'd go for it while if I had a +7 and was fighting an opponent who was wearing plate and carrying a shield (meaning his AC was at least a 20) I'd avoid it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The AC doesn’t really matter - if I’m trying to hit AC 23 then I need a bonus of +13 just to have an even chance to hit. With the -5 I would need a +18 bonus for the same chance. If I have a +19 bonus (somehow) then why not the odds are in my favor (slightly). Generally if my attack bonuses are enough that even with the -5 I need a 9 or less on the roll to hit then it’s a reasonable risk and the lower the roll I need the better the risk is.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
By your own words, the AC does matter. Your attack bonus in a vacuum doesn't matter because your odds of hitting are based off your attack bonus vs the target's AC.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Okay this discussion seems to warrant a bigger light on what is happening:
The thing you have to consider is the average damage you'll get when attacking with sharpshooter vs the average damage without sharpshooter - but with the chances to hit valued in.
Given that your base damage, damage with sharpshooter and to hit chances with and without sharpshooter are known constants in most cases - the only variable remaining is the enemy AC.
Generally you can say that the higher your to hit the bigger the AC to which you should use sharpshooter, while with a higher base damage it the AC to which it is worth to risk that damage is lowered.
If we put all that into a formula and solve to enemy AC we get:
16+TH-D/2>=AC
with TH= to hit bonus, D the average base damage(without sharpshooter) and AC the enemy AC up to which it would result in a better average damage to use sharpshooter.
As an example: If I use a normal light crossbow with a DEX bonus of +3 and a proficiency of +2 my to hit is +5 and my average damage is 1d8+3=7.5 piercing. Plugging all that into the formula: 16+5-7.5/2 =17,25
So if the enemys AC is 17 or lower it would result in a bigger avarage damage to use sharpshooter, while it wouldn't when hitting an enemy with AC 18 or higher.
A little caveat: this doesn't factor in massively high ACs or critical hits, which can make an impact on some of this calculation. (If the AC is so high you can't hit it without a critical hit, you can go for sharpshooter since that chance can't go down anymore etc.)
EDIT: also just to tie this into the discussion: This can mean that you should attack with sharpshooter even if it leaves you with a bad to hit: with my example from above your chance to hit versus a AC 17 enemy with sharpshooter is pretty low, since it leaves you with a 0 to hit (you'd need a 17+ to hit on the dice), but the damage you could inflict with sharpshooter pushes the average over the edge. That doesn't mean you should use sharpshooter on that one kobold with <10 hp.