[Bo9S] Archery schools

[hong]

Schools are now linked from the main page (see sig). I modified the ranger to use them, will probably post that at some stage.

 

[Destil]

hong, Celestial Rain is an awesome school and I'm so stealing a bunch of these effects to use as psionic powers for the soulknife in my game (hurl the mindblade into the air, it splits and thousands of copies rain down).

 

[Piratecat]

This is so good, I feel bad about editing your post in that meta thread.

Thanks for doing this!

 

[Nifft]

This is so good, I feel bad about editing your post in that meta thread.

Thanks for doing this!

Nobody reads Meta anyway.

Cheers, -- N

 

[hong]

hong, Celestial Rain is an awesome school and I'm so stealing a bunch of these effects to use as psionic powers for the soulknife in my game (hurl the mindblade into the air, it splits and thousands of copies rain down).

My alternative name for that one is Framerate Killing Attack.


Archer/ranger so far:

As 3.5 ranger

Remove:

- Animal companion
- Combat styles
- Spells
- Endurance

Add:

- Balance, Bluff, Intimidate and Knowledge (martial lore) to skill list
- Diamond Arrow, Celestial Rain, Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon as allowed disciplines
- Maneuvers/stances as warblade progression
- Full-round action to refresh maneuvers


I might have another "bowsage" type later with a more explicitly mystical bent.

 

[Piratecat]

So, I statted up a lvl 21 ranger cohort (using the above variant) whose maneuvers are all from diamond arrow, except for a few stances from celestial rain. I'm pretty sure it's too powerful.

The 21st-22nd lvl PCs in my game aren't super-optimized, but this 21st lvl ranger I just made can do 342 points of damage in one shot (2d6 bane + [10 favored enemy + 4 avg. weapon dmg + 5 str + 3 misc + 5 magic + 40 strike] x5 stance & crit combined). That's about 50% more than I'm comfortable with.

Thoughts?

 

[Piratecat]

Driving in to work, I wondered if I was looking at a worst case scenario. So I ran some numbers this morning. Please keep in mind that here I'm looking at a 20th level character, and I haven't given any thought to balance at lower levels.


Take a 20th lvl variant ranger PC with a +5 str bonus, +5 magic bow, +3 misc damage due to misc feat bonuses or magic items, and a +10 to dmg vs. his worst foe. Assume rapid shot.

Traditional full attack archery:
- A normal arrow averages about 16 pts dmg, or 96 pts with a full attack when all hit.
- A full attack with one crit does 107 pts. (Usually not all 6 will hit, though.)
- A normal arrow vs a ranger foe does 34 dmg, or 204 pts with a full attack when all hit.
- A full attack with one crit does 216 pts. (Usually not all 6 will hit, though.)
- Only the crits trigger massive damage saves.

Using Diamond Arrow with the 9th lvl strike and either a x2 or x3 stance:
- A normal 9th lvl strike does 57 pts, 114 on a x2 stance, and 171 on a x3 stance.
- A normal 9th lvl strike vs a ranger foe does 67 pts, 134 on a x2 stance, and 201 on a x3 stance.
- A critical hit 9th lvl strike does 171 pts, 228 on a x2 stance, and 285 on a x3 stance.
- A critical hit 9th lvl strike vs a ranger foe does 201 pts, 268 on a x2 stance, and 335 on a x3 stance.
- Every successful shot triggers a massive damage save.
- With no iterative attacks, the arrows are more likely to hit.
- Barring feats, this 9th lvl maneuver can only be performed once per encounter; other maneuvers will do less damage.

My conclusion: those multipliers cause the biggest imbalance.
And since I hate to point out problems without a possible solution...

My change would be making the x2 stances grant x1.5, and making the x3 stance grant x2.

Okay - where'd I screw up in my analysis?

 

[hong]

So, I statted up a lvl 21 ranger cohort (using the above variant) whose maneuvers are all from diamond arrow, except for a few stances from celestial rain. I'm pretty sure it's too powerful.

The 21st-22nd lvl PCs in my game aren't super-optimized, but this 21st lvl ranger I just made can do 342 points of damage in one shot (2d6 bane + [10 favored enemy + 4 avg. weapon dmg + 5 str + 3 misc + 5 magic + 40 strike] x5 stance & crit combined). That's about 50% more than I'm comfortable with.

Thoughts?

I tend to think of anything >20th level as beyond the realm of balance.

However... where do you get the stance + crit + 40 damage combined? Sure, if the ranger rolls a 20 he gets a crit, but that isn't to be relied on. The auto-threat strike doesn't give a damage bonus, unlike the other strikes.

 

[hong]

Driving in to work, I wondered if I was looking at a worst case scenario. So I ran some numbers this morning. Please keep in mind that here I'm looking at a 20th level character, and I haven't given any thought to balance at lower levels.


Take a 20th lvl variant ranger PC with a +5 str bonus, +5 magic bow, +3 misc damage due to misc feat bonuses or magic items, and a +10 to dmg vs. his worst foe. Assume rapid shot.

Traditional full attack archery:
- A normal arrow averages about 16 pts dmg, or 96 pts with a full attack when all hit.
- A full attack with one crit does 107 pts. (Usually not all 6 will hit, though.)
- A normal arrow vs a ranger foe does 34 dmg, or 204 pts with a full attack when all hit.
- A full attack with one crit does 216 pts. (Usually not all 6 will hit, though.)
- Only the crits trigger massive damage saves.

Using Diamond Arrow with the 9th lvl strike and either a x2 or x3 stance:
- A normal 9th lvl strike does 57 pts, 114 on a x2 stance, and 171 on a x3 stance.
- A normal 9th lvl strike vs a ranger foe does 67 pts, 134 on a x2 stance, and 201 on a x3 stance.
- A critical hit 9th lvl strike does 171 pts, 228 on a x2 stance, and 285 on a x3 stance.
- A critical hit 9th lvl strike vs a ranger foe does 201 pts, 268 on a x2 stance, and 335 on a x3 stance.
- Every successful shot triggers a massive damage save.
- With no iterative attacks, the arrows are more likely to hit.
- Barring feats, this 9th lvl maneuver can only be performed once per encounter; other maneuvers will do less damage.

My conclusion: those multipliers cause the biggest imbalance.
And since I hate to point out problems without a possible solution...

My change would be making the x2 stances grant x1.5, and making the x3 stance grant x2.

Okay - where'd I screw up in my analysis?

IME, _the_ most common weapon enchantment by far is holy, which is another 2d6 (average 7) per hit on most monsters. This doesn't get multiplied by the Diamond Arrow stuff. So, by my calculations:

- Damage/hit on regular evil foe: 4.5 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 7 = 24.5
- Damage/hit on favoured enemy: 24.5 + 10 = 34.5

- Full attack on regular evil foe: 6 x 24.5 = 147
- Full attack on favoured enemy: 6 x 34.5 = 207

+40 damage, x3 Diamond Arrow shot on regular evil foe: (17.5 + 40) x 3 + 7 = 179.5
+40 damage, x3 Diamond Arrow shot on favoured enemy: (27.5 + 40) x 3 + 7 = 209.5

I would actually reduce the favoured enemy bonuses instead of/in addition to the Diamond Arrow bonuses, if only because I don't like stuff that's too situational. You end up with characters that are killers against one enemy type, and ineffectual (well, relatively speaking) against everyone else. The prime example of this kind of thing is sneak attack, which when it works is a killer, but too easily negated.

 

[Piratecat]

Actually, I considered the holy bonus and excluded it for simplicity's sake. It's easier to compare apples and durian fruits without all the non-essential fluff.

The favored enemy bonus is easy to tone down a bit, of course, as it could be +6/+6/+2/+2/+2 instead of +10/+2/+2/+2/+2. It's that multiplier that's chafing me. In my opinion, a class where average damage is the equivalent of one or more bonus attacks (147 vs 179 pts) is a problem. The problem is multiplied by the fact that iterative attacks are much less likely to hit against many high level foes, at least the ones I've been using lately.

Interestingly, if the x3 stance granted x2.5 instead, the damage works out to be almost identical to a full attack where every arrow hit.