NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 503041" data-attributes="member: 5868">Still trying to have a reasonable discussion here folks, let's settle down ...This is part of my point, that this is one of the balancing effects.I agree with you that the archer is slightly better than the TWF, the point I'm trying to make is the reason for the imbalance is NOT Rapid Shot, or Point Blank Shot, or the combination.The TWF has Amb/TWF/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at -1/+2 (ignoring stats, magic, etc).The archer has PBS/RS/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at +0/+2 within 30', and at -1/+0 outside of 30'.Now, in my experience (I'm sure yours is different), the mix of engagements at <30' and >30' is about 50/50 (and is almost entirely under the control of the DM).  I've found that at close ranges, the influence of firing into melee (unless Precise shot is taken, spending a 3rd feat), plus the influences of cover (which is almost always a factor at close range and isn't mitigated by any feat.In my opinion, balanced does not necessarily mean equal modifiers.  I (obviously) feel the system is balanced, as:For a second archery attack, PBS+RS does not always apply, cand can suffer from cover and firing into melee when it does, whereasThe second melee attack from AMB+TWF is a benefit that can be obtained, albeit at greater penalties, by spending zero, one, or two feats.If you attempt to redress the perceived archer-melee fighter imbalance by changing Rapid Shot, I think you swing the balance too far the other way.And then, will you add another feat to allow an archer an additional attack at -5, to balance with Improved Two Weapon Fighting?I think the system's fine as is, though I appreciate Petrosian's viewpoint.</blockquote>

Verification