It mattered more the higher the level they were, since more monsters were resistant to certain damage types, but even then it usually accounted for 10%, at most, of the total damage for the encounter. This is of course one table’s experience, with one DM and one group, but it rarely accounted for much of the damage they dealt to enemies. In fact, they said it helped them feel like they contributed more when they could actually affect enemies that were resistant to all types of piercing damage, rather than feeling inferior all the time to casters who could plink away with magic missiles or other spells and always affect the enemy. Letting the player make the extra damage be the type that would be most useful in that situation didn’t seem to adversely affect balance at the table. The few times it mattered, the creature in question had resistances or vulnerabilities that one type of damage would bypass and the other wouldn’t. A feat is a fairly heavy opportunity cost, and -5 to an attack roll is a pretty heavy penalty, and it rarely made a difference in my game what type the extra damage was. Beyond the tweetĪs a DM, I have ruled that you could choose the damage type of the extra damage, for a similar situation (a fighter with the Sharpshooter feat and a bow that dealt piercing damage as well as extra lightning damage). Several related questions cite this tweet as a source, and all of them use the tweet to argue you can choose which damage type the extra damage is. However, the tweet is in reference to hunter’s mark, a 1st level spell, rather than to the specific Sharpshooter feat you ask about. The tweet you linked is the closest thing to an official ruling, and Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are not official rulings anymore. There’s no official answer, just inferences and DM rulings
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |