Power Attack for Ranged Weapons

[hong]

Not in this case.

Nonsense.

IMO it appears that the desire to insert a power attack for ranged attacks comes from a desire to up the power of archers. {Daaah}

Nonsense. It comes from a desire to provide an alternative to the tired and overdone machine-gun archer schtick, whereby the archer stands and runs through the 1,000 arrows stored in the bag of holding.

But most opinions on the boards (not necessarily this thread but in general over the past) seem to indicate that people think archers are more powerful to start with.

Whether or not this is true has nothing to do with whether or not the machine-gun archer schtick is enjoyable or desirable. As said before, a flavour rather than balance consideration.

Now this opinion arrises from the fact that they can do a great deal of damage at range with little danger of being harmed by melee combatants. The "balance" comes in when one considers that melee combatants "rule" when it comes to melee.

I died a little on reading that.

That is once they close on their targets (ranged attackers, spellcasters) they tend to deal a lot of damage in a short time. Their feats tend to reinforce this (the power attack/cleave chain is the prime example) while ranged attackers rely on their mobility and ability to attack from outside of melee range.

Well, um, this is why, you know, a ranged power-attack feat has, uh, the consequence that ranged attackers would have to rely on their mobility and ability to attack from outside melee range.

Or maybe not. It's possible that I missed something here.

Ranged attackers can also take advantage of the fact that their ammunition and bow can each have +10 in enhancements/properties that stack (except for the base enhancement bonus).

D00d, have you ever put +10 worth of stuff on an arrow? Seriously, please.

So an archer (non epic) can have a +5 composite bow with +5 worth of other abilities added and still gain +9 worth of different enhancements on their arrows). Now this is balanced by the fact that ammunitions is destroyed so becomes more expensive than the bow - but the flexability is still there.

Your point being...?

Increasing the ranged attackers advantage would tip the scales pretty dramatically, IMO.

Demonstrate how providing an alternative to machine-gun archery increases the ranged attacker's advantage.

The present RAW tends to reflect the historical roles of melee and ranged combatants.

History is bunk.

 

[Darklone]

Soo... ranged combat is better to attack from a certain range while melee combat is better for melee ?

 

[irdeggman]

Soo... ranged combat is better to attack from a certain range while melee combat is better for melee ?

Logic check SAT.


IMO changing the dynamic is basically bad.

 

[hong]

Logic check SAT.

"STAT"

IMO changing the dynamic is basically bad.

Yeah, I can see how making ranged attackers attack at range changes the dynamic.

 

[irdeggman]

Nonsense.

Pleased then prove this assertion.

Since changing "mechanics" is not "flavor" in any normal use of the term.

Nonsense. It comes from a desire to provide an alternative to the tired and overdone machine-gun archer schtick, whereby the archer stands and runs through the 1,000 arrows stored in the bag of holding.

Then use throw weapons which have an entirely different function - somewhere between pure ranged and pure melee.

Or use the Scout from Complete Adventurer or one of the archer based prestige classes. There are plenty of options out there already that are available without trying to make the archer a more melee-like combatant.

Whether or not this is true has nothing to do with whether or not the machine-gun archer schtick is enjoyable or desirable. As said before, a flavour rather than balance consideration.

But it comes down to mechanics and that is where "balance" comes into play.

I died a little on reading that.

Well glad you were resurected then.

Well, um, this is why, you know, a ranged power-attack feat has, uh, the consequence that ranged attackers would have to rely on their mobility and ability to attack from outside melee range.

See scout base class - it pretty much does this via skirmish damage. Then add on the "ranged power attack" feat to that class and see what kind of damage you'd end up with.

D00d, have you ever put +10 worth of stuff on an arrow? Seriously, please.

The option is available and it is not available to a melee combatant. The most often used option is instead specific ammunition for specific targets - an archer doesn't have to change weapons to maximize effect fro magic weapons and arrows weigh a heck of lot less than do several different melee weapons.

Your point being...?

Built in options to an archer that a great sword fighter doesn't have.

Demonstrate how providing an alternative to machine-gun archery increases the ranged attacker's advantage.

Demonstrate how this won't change the balance of power and how people will not start to flock to taking ranged combatants instead and how this won't lead to balance issues with classes like the scout.

Especially with things like elvencraft bows.

 

[hong]

Pleased then prove this assertion then.

Since changing "mechanics" is not "flavor" in any normal use of the term.

Sigh. It was claimed that archers are all about many shots dealing moderate damage while melee fighters are about a few attacks dealing big damage. It was further claimed that this constituted "balance". There is however nothing "balancing" about this setup, in the game-mechanical sense of ensuring nobody overpowers the others. It is a happenstance relic of how the current rules work, pure and simple. The fact that WotC themselves made classes that change the "balance" is an indication of that.

then use throw weapons which have an entirely different function - somewhere between pure ranged and pure melee.

Now I know you're just trolling.

Or use the Scout from Complete Adventurer or one of the archer based prestige classes. There are plenty of options out there already that are available without trying to make the archer a more melee-like combatant.

1. How it is that firing one shot AT RANGE make the archer into a more melee-like combatant entirely escapes me. Perhaps it's that pesky flavour text that mentioned the little homunculus sitting on the arrow, clubbing the target into submission.

2. Ooh, check it out. This feat is not okay, but the scout, which also does extra damage with a single shot but without a penalty to hit, is okay. The WotC Stamp of Approval[tm] rules all!

2a. Insert frenzied berserker joke here.

But it comes down to mechanics and that is where "balance" comes into play.

Demonstrate that one attack with a bonus to damage, at the expense of a full attack, is not balanced; ie, is uniformly mechanically advantageous compared to all reasonable alternatives.

Well glad you were resurected then.

I'm dying AGAIN.

See scout base class - it pretty much does this via skirmish damage. Then add on the "ranged power attack" feat to that class and see what kind of damage you'd end up with.

The feat was made before the class. It's nice that WotC finally managed to get with the program, but that in itself does not invalidate the reason for the feat's existence.

The option is avaialbe and it is not available to a melee combatant.

I ask again: d00d, have you ever put +10 worth of stuff on an arrow?

And what the heck, since we're talking stupid extremes here, have you noticed how an enlarged maximised fireball can do >10,000 points of damage?

The most often used option is instead specific ammunition for specific targets - an archer doesn't have to change weapons to maximize effect fro magic weapons and arrows weigh a heck of lot less than do several different melee weapons.

And how, exactly, is this meant to synergise with a ranged power-attack mechanic in such a way as to be unbalanced? Heck, if anything the synergy goes the other way, since extra damage means less need for special materials to bust through DR. You're just spinning out empty arguments about the various ways in which archers are powerful, without noticing that these ways don't actually synergise with single-shot attacks.

Built in options to an archer that a great sword fighter doesn't have.

And which don't and will never exist, in the vast majority of campaigns. I will put money on this.

Demonstrate how this won't change the balance of power and how people will not start to flock to taking ranged combatants instead and how this won't lead to balance issues with classes like the scout.

Because you still have to take the penalty to hit, and the scout (unlike fighter classes) doesn't have BAB to burn. Furthermore, if people have been decrying the scout for the horrible, horrible torrents of damage it deals out, comparable to machine-gun archers with 6 or more shots per round, I seem to have missed it.

Especially with things like elvencraft bows.

1. Stupid splatbook stuff is not particularly relevant.

2. It's RANGED power attack. Not melee.

3. See above comment about pointless arguments and not noticing stuff.

 

[quetzyl]

It seems to me that giving an archer the option of trading a full attack or a manyshot for a single attack with power attack is fair enough. At say level 6, the archer can choose between 1 shot at -6 to hit for an extra 12 points of damage, 1 shot at -4 for double normal damage (using manyshot) or 3 shots, 2 at -2 to hit and 1 at -7 for normal damage (using rapid shot). All three look to me like balanced options with different benefits and disadvantages. Provided you don't allow the archer to power attack on every shot in a full attack, or to combine your power attack with manyshot, then I don't see it as unbalanced. I would suggest making the called shot a full round action, rather than a standard action, if you are worried about it being too strong. The only problems I can see come from combining this new option with spells, such as Storm of Arrows or Hunter's Mercy, but making it a full attack action should limit those options enough. Personally, if you restricted this option to within 30' only, I'd consider it a bit underpowered compared with manyshot, and would be unlikely to take the feat.

Cheers,
quetzyl

 

[The Souljourner]

Ok, Hong pretty much has it dead on.

1.) Thrown weapons - *rofl* Oh my god, you really really really can't be serious. All the cost of a melee weapon (generally the most expensive magic item a character has), except you need 3-4 of them WITH the returning ability *and* quickdraw in order to be able to make more than one round of attacks. Yeah, that's friggin' great.

2.) +10 in enhancements. Never happens. Ever. +5 arrows are 1000gp EACH. If you happen to *find* some arrows that have enhancements, then you might take them out when you're fighting the next big bad guy.

3.) "They never have to get into melee" Are all of your enemies slowed halflings in full plate? The ability requires you to get within 30 feet. That's WELL within melee range. Once that halforc with the greataxe charges you, you're fairly well screwed. Sure, you can 5' step and full attack, but so can he.

Honestly, I don't know what an elvencraft bow does. If it's like the ones in 2nd edition, it probably allows you to make attacks of opportunity (usable as a melee weapon). If it prevents you from drawing attacks of opportunity, I'd like to see how they justify it.

-----------------------

I believe ranged power attack, only within 30', even usable with a full attack, would be perfectly balanced. If you've ever seen the power attack optimizations, you'd know that 1 for 1 power attack is pretty crappy. It generally means you're doing 1 or 2 points of damage more on average. It's the 1 for 2 power attack that two handed weapons get that actually starts to get a little crazy. If you don't allow that, power attack wouldn't even really be all that great.

-Nate

 

[irdeggman]

Now I know you're just trolling.

And what the heck, since we're talking stupid extremes here, have you noticed how an enlarged maximised fireball can do >10,000 points of damage?

3. See above comment about pointless arguments and not noticing stuff.

I never troll and only unintentionally insult people.

This is at least the second time within this thread you have insulted someone who doesn't agree with your opinion. Generally that falls under the scope of trolling. But since we disagree on what flavor and mechanics mean I guess we can likewise disagree on wht trolling means too.


Now when someone considers that this is a house-rule being proposed in a rules oriented thread it should be relatively obvious that answers are going to be based on the RAW.

If this was, however, posted on the house-rules thread then a different paradigm exists and discussion occurs at a different level. Usually less adversarially too.

 

[Storyteller01]

As I recall you had a recent topic on how to get a melee warrior to realize that your game was heavily advantaged towards ranged attackers already.

Right, but those ranged weapons put out 3d8 to 4d10 hp per hit, and fire with bursts. A high roll against a low AC target could be looking at 120 pt of damage from a 1st level character (without a critical!). He had a reason to worry.