Archery feats (extending the tree?)

[SylverFlame]

Deset and Rackhir both said that archers attack bonuses are nuts, so giving them a ranged power attack is bad. What are you two talking about? A 3rd level fighter has the same BAB whether it's using melee or ranged weapons. BAB is determined by class not weapon, ability or anything else for that matter.

As such, I don't see why archers shouldn't get the Power Shot feat as posted as long as it's requirements match power attack. In fact, power attack will always be better than Power Shot, and the reason is Power Attack works with any melee weapon, axe sword or whatever, power shot ONLY works with Bows. And mighty composite bows at that. That means the character is using a feat to focus on a mighty composite bow (which every archer worth their salt has anyway, i realize this). If a char wants to give a feat slot to this, I say let them.

Besides, under most circumstances bows don't do a whole lot of damage. It's only the fact that your making so many shots a round, and usually hitting with them all, that it seems like they always do. A properly built fighter (melee) compared with an archer will ALWAYS out damage the archer on any given round.

Besides, if an archer is giving you trouble, throw them against a monk with the Arrow Grabber feat chain (that's what I call it at least). Chances are that monk will beat the archer to death with his own bow, no matter how much distance it has to cover.

 

[Rackhir]

Deset and Rackhir both said that archers attack bonuses are nuts, so giving them a ranged power attack is bad. What are you two talking about? A 3rd level fighter has the same BAB whether it's using melee or ranged weapons. BAB is determined by class not weapon, ability or anything else for that matter.

As such, I don't see why archers shouldn't get the Power Shot feat as posted as long as it's requirements match power attack. In fact, power attack will always be better than Power Shot, and the reason is Power Attack works with any melee weapon, axe sword or whatever, power shot ONLY works with Bows. And mighty composite bows at that. That means the character is using a feat to focus on a mighty composite bow (which every archer worth their salt has anyway, i realize this). If a char wants to give a feat slot to this, I say let them.

Besides, under most circumstances bows don't do a whole lot of damage. It's only the fact that your making so many shots a round, and usually hitting with them all, that it seems like they always do. A properly built fighter (melee) compared with an archer will ALWAYS out damage the archer on any given round.

Example in point, an archer from my previous campaign.

Rackhir the Red Archer

Male Human Bar 1/Ftr 6/OBI 5; HD 12D10+36; HP 107; Init +3 (+3 Dex); Speed 80 Ft; AC 19 (+3 dex, +4 Armor, +2 Ring of Protection); Attack Mighty (+4) Composite Long Bow +1 Acid Burst Keen +20/+15/+10, 1D8+1d6+5 (+1 Hit/+4 Dam '30), or Dwarven War Ax +18/+13/+8 D10+8 SV Fort +11, Ref +9, Will +6; Al CN; Str 18, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 12;

Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run, Weapon Focus (Comp Long Bow), Weapon Specialization (Comp Long Bow), Improved Critical (CLB), Dodge, Mobility, Leadership (Griffon).

Special Abilities : Rage, +10 ft Movement, Close Combat Shot (does not evoke AoO when firing a bow in Close Combat), Superior Weapon Focus, +1d6 Sneak Attack, Knockback Shot, Free Attack (Gain AoO, if ally does).

Rackhir at 12th level has a total attack bonus, before GMW of +21 at close range.

A Fire Giant (cr10) has an AC of 21, which means that Rackhir is going to hit him on a 2 or better. Factoring in GMW (+4/+4) for a total of +28 (bow is already +1) he could take a penalty of 10-12 points for an additional 10-12 points of damage on EACH arrow. Nearly doubling his bonus damage per shot.

So with "power shot" he's going to dish out, 1d8+1d6+28 (+ 9 base damage + 7 GMW + 12 Power Shot). With to hit rolls against the fire giant of 7/7/12/17 on his attacks. And on a crit he'll do 3d8+2d10+84.

Rackhir is pretty well optimized, though he is relatively light on magic items. The one thing I've never seen him accused of was dealing out insuficient damage. Nor has anyone described his bow of not doing much damage. He was in fact the best killing machine in the campaign (by a hair over the other archer).

Now lets look at the infamous Wulf Ratbane, a pretty effective killing machine in his own right.

Male Dwarf Rog 3/Ftr 8/Devoted Defender 1; medium sized humanoid (dwarf); HD 3d6 + 8d10+ 1d12 + 72; hp 147; Init +8 (+4 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative); Speed 20 ft; AC 21 (+4 Dex, +7 Armor); base attack +11/+6/+1; Attack Taranak (Battle Axe +1 Flame Burst) +17/+12/+7 melee, or Dagger +3 +18/+13/+8 melee, or Hand Axe +2 +17/+12/+7 melee; two weapon style Taranak and Dagger +3 (+15/+10/+5)/(+16/+11); Dmg Taranak d8 +d6 flame +5(x3 +2d10 flame burst), dagger d4+7 (19-20 x2), hand axe d6+6 (x3); SV Fort +18, Ref +14, Will +6; AL CG (CN tendencies); Str 16 (18 w/ Belt of Strength +2), Dex 18, Con 22, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8.

Ambidexterity, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Quick Draw, Point Blank Shot, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, Expert Tactician, Alertness, Weapon Focus: Battle-axe

Special Abilities and Qualities: Dwarf racial qualities, Disable Traps, Sneak Attack +2d6, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Harm's Way, AC bonus +1 (while defending)

Magic Items:

Taranak Battle Axe +1 Flaming Burst, Dagger +3 Ghost Touch, Hand Axe +2, Chain Shirt +3 Silent Moves, Cloak of Shadows (+10 Hide), Amulet of Resistance +3, Dart +2 (x4), Dagger +1, Bracers of Defense +2, Ring of Misdirection, Hat of Disguise, Belt of Strength +2, Large Shield +1

The infamous Wulf has a total attack bonus of 11 less than Rackhir for his primary attack (Taranak) which does less damage even with out the power attack. Factoring in GMW (+4 from a presumed 12lv Shorty) does help somewhat, cutting it down to an 8 point deficit on the attack roll. However he is still only doing 1d8+1d6+8 per attack roll and the attack bonus differential means he can't afford to power attack with anywhere near the bonus.

Now if you are talking about 3rd level characters. Yes, it's not going to make a difference, but little is at that level. The characters are only just getting effective enough that their attacks aren't determined solely by their dice rolls.

Is a monk going to give an archer fits, yes. However even without his bow Rackhir is hardly a helpless combatant.

Can a sufficently optimized melee character out damage an archer, sure. But you are usually also talking about a totally muchkinized character with 3 or 4 prestige classes, if the smackdowns are any guide.

 

[SylverFlame]

But the feat only affects BAB not the total. Even if you have a total attack bonus of +1000, if your BAB is only +1, the feat only allows an attack to damage conversion of +1.

I know the example is completely impossible, but it illustrates the point I am making. The feat will only give a slight bonus for a character, regardless of level, because its bonuses from magic and other feats outweighs its BAB by a fair bit most of the time. In those rare instances when BAB is largely above the other attack bonuses, then I can see the problem. The thing is, I don't see why a character choice should be weakened because of potential abuse.

 

[hong]

But the feat only affects BAB not the total. Even if you have a total attack bonus of +1000, if your BAB is only +1, the feat only allows an attack to damage conversion of +1.

I know the example is completely impossible, but it illustrates the point I am making. The feat will only give a slight bonus for a character, regardless of level, because its bonuses from magic and other feats outweighs its BAB by a fair bit most of the time.

At 10th level, an archer with a +3 bow, +3 arrows and 20 Dex is still getting 47.6% of their attack bonus from BAB. At 20th level, said archer with a +5 bow, +5 arrows, 26 Dex and bracers of archery is getting exactly 50% of their attack bonus from BAB. This is not an inconsiderable amount.

What I did re ranged Power Attack: I limited it to a full-round action (so you only get one shot off), and only against targets within 30 feet. I also called it "Called Shot", to show that you get the damage bonus because you're aiming for the vital bits rather than just center-of-mass. It's on my list of combat feats on my D&D page.

 

[Rackhir]

But the feat only affects BAB not the total. Even if you have a total attack bonus of +1000, if your BAB is only +1, the feat only allows an attack to damage conversion of +1.

I know the example is completely impossible, but it illustrates the point I am making. The feat will only give a slight bonus for a character, regardless of level, because its bonuses from magic and other feats outweighs its BAB by a fair bit most of the time. In those rare instances when BAB is largely above the other attack bonuses, then I can see the problem. The thing is, I don't see why a character choice should be weakened because of potential abuse.

Did you read my example carefully? My character has sufficent bonuses that he would have been able to use all or nearly all of his BAB in his Power Shot and that will generally be the case with archers at medium+ levels (8+). That is rarely the case for melee characters. Is +28 points of damage PER shot at 12th level not sufficient reason to not permit the feat? He can drop a Giant per round on his own with that kind of damage.

We are not talking about potential abuse. We are talking about a feat that nobody in their right minds would not exploit to the hilt. This is not some tricky combination that in rare circumstances can be exploited, we are talking about a basic feat that can be used pretty much all the time, unless you think it's neccesary to kill your enemies slowly so the other characters have time to take some down.

Just becase a feat is ineffective at low levels tells you nothing abot it's effectiveness at higher levels. When you are 1-3rd level NOTHING makes much of a difference, since you generally do not have sufficent bonuses to outweigh the dice rolls.

 

[SylverFlame]

I'm not ragging on you Rackhir, and I fully expect every PC to fully exploit every rule in the game. That's why groups come up with house rules. I'm just stating that in my opinion (as a DM and as a player) that I liked the feat. The reason this feat was posted in the first place was to garner opinions, and if what happens like what you and I have done, then that just fosters new opinions. I'm not attacking what you said or saying you're wrong, I'm just giving my two cents on what was posted (by BillBeanbag and you).

Of course, since hong posted his alteration I must say I like the 30 foot limit. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Rackhir]

I'm not ragging on you Rackhir, and I fully expect every PC to fully exploit every rule in the game.

Relax. I didn't think you were ragging on me. I just don't understand how you can say that archers getting power attack isn't a problem. Especially when you are giving examples from low levels where nothing is very effective.

Sure it's a sweet ability. I'd love to have it for my archer characters, they'd be vastly more effective killing machines.

Given the muchkinisim I've been accused of at times I do find it ironic, that I'm arguing against a increase in power. I've had complaints in the past that my archers were already too effective a killing machine. While I wouldn't agree with the "too effective" part, I shudder to think at the havok a reasonably well designed archer could wreak with Power Shot.

Archers definitely don't need the increased damage over what they can do now. Especially if you started mixing it in with say DWS's increased crit range and mulitplier, or an OoBI's sneak attack damage.

Getting to use a feat like power attack would probably increase an archers lethality at least 50%. As it was I used to make jokes about spinning up the gatling gun when my archer's turn came around to attack. Generally he dropped at least one major monster per round on his own.

Power Shot would completely unbalance things in favor of the archers. Not having power attack is one of the things that balances them vs. melee characters. It's one of the reasons why bow and arrow bonuses can be permitted to stack or why Rapid Shot is not horribly unbalancing. We're not talking about adding a point or two of damage. Most archers most of the time will be able to use all or most of their BAB as increased damage.

I've run numerous archers in various D&D campaigns over the years. None of them has ever needed to be more lethal than they were already.

 

[Kinomen Dragoon]

Listen,lLas has a point.With Dead eye my Elf has killed at least 12 kiethens from the nex D&D book.(the name, I forrget.) But archers are the innicale for many charactors.las made a feat called ranged cleave that does exactly what preisce dose, gothrought the enemy.When I took that feat in one of las' campign anytime someone was behinde the enemy ,it was dead. With that dead eye feat he would have been unstopable.Also power shot is a feat and ablity in the Silver MarchesSilver Marches

 

[SylverFlame]

I can definitely see where you're coming from Rackhir. So here come's the next question for you.

Axe the feat or alter it? If alter, then how?

 

[Rackhir]

I would not permit the feat in a non-epic campaign. It should be usable in an Epic Level Campaign though, since the power levels are already obscene. Power shot for an archer would also help balance things out vs the Epic Level Casters. Limiting it to a 30' range would probably not be a bad idea either and fits in with most other archery limitations.