Once per turn is likely to be successful, because it leaves most of the feat unchanged and for many characters it makes no difference at all. There is always risk and on the whole we as individual homebrewers don't have access to the playtesting needed to ensure our tweaks are robust. Minor tweaks to playtested rules are more likely to be successful.
The power-attack revision makes such a world substantially less likely.Ī fourth consideration is likelihood of success.
#Crossbow expert manual
The revisions do that, again through retaining disadvantage and through "once per turn" on ranged power attacks.ģ) Avoid "World of Pavises and Crossbows" (DMs can still create that world if they like, but most D&D adventures don't go that route, and creatures in the Monster Manual aren't designed with that kind of world in mind). Enhance the viability of single-attack classes versus extra-attack classes. Ensure that bows remain viable, compared with crossbows. Ranged weapons continue to make sense at range, where their other advantages multiply their effective power.Ģ) Ensure melee remains viable, compared with range and casting. Indirectly, they reduce the peak damage available to ranged weapons so that, if entering melee, characters would prefer to use a melee weapon. Directly, they retain disadvantage for ranged weapons in melee. The revisions do that both directly and indirectly. With that in mind, what have I proposedġ) Let melee weapons shine in melee. As you know my guiding principles are let them shine (limit overshadowing), broaden choice (more viable strategies), and don't warp the narrative (don't force DMs to change their world to deal with an ability). Revised Sharpshooter does about 32 (at up to 600'). At 11th level, a greatsword with everything focused on dealing maximum damage with it, does about 43 damage/turn (at 5') prior to magic. Why no similar revision for GWM? I see the role of Great Weapon Master as defining the most damage we should expect from weapons (before magic).
The advantage of range becomes properly factored into the damage. The crucial impact of this change is to prevent ranged attacks from matching Great Weapon Master for damage, but at 120'. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage. Once per turn, 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. Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover. Melee weapons continue to dominate melee.Īttacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. The crucial impact of this change is to retain a disadvantage to ranged attacks in melee. When you make a melee attack against a creature, being within 5 feet of that creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls for the rest of the turn. When you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to load and attack with a hand crossbow you are holding. You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. In part, a goal of these revisions was to be conservative - the least rewording needed to protect melee weapons as the best choice for melee, and prevent ranged weapons from doing close to the same damage as the best melee. These wordings bring together ideas from many authors. Following extensive analysis in this and other threads, and experience in play, I'd like to propose a definite wording for two feat revisions.