Archery Full Round Attack

[irdeggman]

Maybe part of the designer's though was how much ammunition an archer would go through too?

"Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being
destroyed or lost."

and for magic ammunition it is worse

"When a magic arrow, crossbow bolt, or sling bullet misses its target, there is a 50% chance it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless. A magic arrow, bolt or bullet that hits is destroyed."

So ignoring the fact that they were most likely looking at making a "simple" system that treated pretty much all attacks the same, if you look at the costs involved - a low level archer (who would have a very large chance of missing his target using the options proposed) would go through ammunition pretty darn quickly. A quiver has limited amount of storage (and in order to have a magical one capable of storing more - the archer would propbably have pretty close to multiple normal attacks anyway due to BAB).

 

[Arkhandus]

Fine. But, per the rules, it's impossible. That's all I'm questioning. It seems more logical, to me, that a 1st level archer be allowed two shots using the standard two-weapon penalties.

And, further, I think it logical that a 1st level fighter, using a longsword, should get two attacks using the standard two-weapon penalties, as well. You could probably cut this one off at the one-handed weapons, though (and I'd make the penalty so high that it wouldn't be worth it).

Heck, maybe that's what the game designers were thinking and decided not to include the rule since the penalty was so steep anyway (-10 per blow?).

But why are you insisting on two-weapon fighting rules applying here, or as some kind of precedent? An archer holds his bow with one hand and loads/fires with the other. They're not attacking simultaneously or in quick succession with both hands, like someone wielding a pair of daggers or spinning a quarterstaff could do.

YES, the rules could stand to be a little more realistic (all characters ought to be capable of making a certain maximum number of attacks per round based on how heavy/clumsy/complicated/slow their weapon is, with higher BAB intervals just reducing the penalties for doing so and feats etc. allowing extra attacks for masters of those weapons), but it's not absolutely necessary in the abstract combat of D&D.

The rules don't allow for every character to attack that rapidly just due to matters of game-balance, suspense, simplicity, and abstraction. Primarily, I think, for the reasons I outlined in my last post. IMHO anyway. And you're free to houserule it differently in your own games so it's just a largely pointless discussion of why the game-designers decided to make the combat rules work the way they did.

Games like Shadowrun where any sufficiently-fast character can gun down anyone else quickly every round tend to have a higher PC-mortality rate and lower high-fantasy/heroic feel to them (that or most enemies end up dying too quick to present any real challenge, making some adventures a cakewalk). It could just be a stylistic choice if nothing else.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Could you run some numbers on that for me?

To me it looks like the archer will hit more often. He isn't paying two-weapon fighting penalties.

Let's use numbers that 3.5 actually supports, though. I haven't done the math yet, but let's do it together. I'll be calculating the attacks as if they're both within the first range increment of the weapons (no penalties to attack).

Let's see... Say the tree is a base AC10, give it two points of natural armor (see Barkskin spell), no DEX modifier, and say it's larger than a man so we get a size mod. End result, let's just say AC10.

That's a pretty incorrect formula. From the SRD:

Armor Class
Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

Okay, so a tree that is Huge-sized (which is the size modifier you gave it) actually has an AC of 1 (10 - 2 for size - 5 for no Dex - 2 for being inanimate). So, incredibly different from your AC of 10.

But, the archer will be using a full-round action to shoot, since there's no drawback.

Presume both men have similar ability scores, and matching range penalties.

Better yet, let's make those "same ability scores" into 10s, so there's no ability modifier.

With that, both would hit with an unmodified 9 or better (+1BAB, what with them both being 1st level fighters). 55% hit rate, straight up. <EDIT>Correction, 60%. Don't know where my head is at</EDIT>

They'll both hit on a 1 or better so far. 100% hit chance for everyone!

But the axeman has two blades, one in each hand. He needs to roll a 19 with his off hand (-10 to hit on a "9 or better" roll ), and a 15 for his on-hand throw (-6 on a "9 or better"). So instead of hitting 55% of the time, he hits 30% and 5%.

If we're using throwing axes, the penalties are actually -4/-8 according to the SRD (I'm guessing -6/-6 or -4/-4 in Conan, but we'll use the SRD for now), since they're light weapons. From the SRD:

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Light Melee Weapons
Axe, throwing 8 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 10 ft. 2 lb. Slashing

This change also improves the chances of the axe thrower.

The archer will hit 100% of the time against AC 1. The axe thrower will hit on a 5, and on a 9. So, 80% on his first throw, and 60% on his second throw.

He'll get twice as many shots in a given time, but his over all hit rate is in the toilet. 20%, in fact, or a bit more than a third as often as the archer. (18.3333333% would be a third).

Not really the case after all.

If you have trouble seeing the source for those numbers, think about it this way: If he throws 100 times with each hand, aside from being tired he'll have hit 10 times with his off hand, and 30 with his on hand, or 40 total out of 200 shots, which works out to 20%.

Actually, if he throws 100 times with each hand, he'll hit 80 times with his main hand, and 60 times with his off hand. This means he hits 140 out of 200 shots, for a total accuracy rate of 70%. Dramatically higher than 20%.

During that same period of time, the archer will have only shot 100 arrows (half as many), but will have hit 55 times, or 55%. <EDIT> Mea culpa. That's 60%, not 55%. Sorry. So the archer hits 3 times as often.</EDIT>

During this time, the archer hits 100% of the time, for 100 out of 100 shots. Perfect accuracy, but he only scores about 5/7ths the number of hits the axe thrower does.

Now, oddly, the axeman's numbers get closer to the archer's as the AC of the target goes up. At AC11 or higher he needs a natural 20 to hit with the off hand. 5% success, and that can't drop any further as the AC goes up, while the archer's hit rate can. That's a peculiarity of the D20 system though, and the fact that it's granularity is never finer than 5% increments.

I haven't done the math yet on actual living targets (ie, target's with AC above 1), but I can if you'd like me to. I don't think the archer would fair much better, as he'd lose the +5 bonus on inanimate objects, but he may.

In any case, those are the numbers the way I see them. How are you getting the archer hitting half as often as the axeman?

Well, in reality, the archer isn't hitting half as often, you're correct. He's hitting about 71% of the time, I think. That's pretty significant, but maybe not as bad as either of you thought.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the matter.

At any rate, play what you like

 

[Ranes]

Let's use numbers that 3.5 actually supports, though...

...They'll both hit on a 1 or better so far. 100% hit chance for everyone!

...During this time, the archer hits 100% of the time, for 100 out of 100 shots. Perfect accuracy...

A natural 1 always misses.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A natural 1 always misses.

You're correct, of course (darn my game for not using that rule, it finally got me!).

This means that the axe thrower still hits 140 out of 200 shots (70%), while the archer hits 95 out of 100 shots (95%). The gap widens a little bit. Now the archer hits only ~68% as often, not ~71%. Good catch, Ranes.

As always, play what you like

 

[the Jester]

Guys, all I'm saying is this: If a 1st level fighter, even with penalties, can throw two hand axes, then it should be possible for an archer to nock, aim, and loose two arrows in one round.

Again, it's called Rapid Shot.

 

[the Jester]

I guess ultimately if someone wanted to insist on taking two shots a round without a BAB +6 or appropriate feat or anything, I'd let them roll to hit for the first and just mark off an arrow for the second, figuring it would have zero accuracy. But like I keep saying, the game has ways for a first level character to get off two arrows a round, he just has to be focused on archery.

 

[Greenfield]

Lot of variables. Hard to figure accurately. For example, you have to find the range to the tree that is proportional to the range the axeman is useing.

Axes have a range increment of 10 feet. If both are 10 feet from the target, neither gets any bonus or penalty. Not at all hard to figure.

It's easier to just call that "equal" and "fair".

That's what I did.

Once you figure out the proportional ranges (you can't just pull something out of the air because it may, indeed, benefit the axeman over the archer, or the other way around), you can figure the archer's one shot probability to the probability that either of the axeman's axes will hit.

Did that as well. Unpenalized, each has a 60% chance of hitting.

If you need to see the numbers on that, just figure that each pip on the D20 represents 1/20th, or 5%. With a target number of 9 (AC10 and a BAB of 1), there are 12 rolls that result in a hit. Just add them up.

That woud give you a good number to compare.

Which I got.

When you count in the TWF penalties of -6 and -10, the axeman's target numbers change to 15 and 19.


For the 15, there are 6 rolls that result in a hit (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). Count them up at 5% each and you get 30% hit rate.
For the 19, there are 2 rolls that result in a hit, so 10% over all.

In 10 minutes of firing the archer will have fired 100 times (once per 6 seconds is 10 per minute, times 10 minutes.) He will have hit 60 times.

In 10 minutes of throwing, the axeman will have thrown 200 times (twice the rate of fire of the archer). He will have hit 40 times (30 with his right hand and 10 with his left).

40 hits out of 200 shots is 20 out of 100, or 20%, which is 1/3rd of the over all accuracy of the archer.

Nothing pulled out of the air, nothing conveniently arranged to skew the results, nothing hidden, nothing up my sleeve, no surprises. You are asking for the right to be 1/3rd as effective in combat, while giving absolutely no mechanical explanation for how you would justify it.

Oh, and if we put an actual target on the tree, giving enough size penalty to make it AC 16 (a far more realistic AC for 1st level opponents), do you know what happens to the numbers?

The archer's accuracy rate drops to 30% (he now needs a 15 or higher), and the axe man's accuracy drops to 5% (he now needs natural 20s for everything). So the archer is now 6 times more effective.

 

[Dandu]

I love this thread.

 

[kitcik]

I love this thread.

Mmmm hmmm.