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="Petrosian" data-source="post: 503370" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>I will give you that the archer loses some of his benefits outside 30' but i will suggest to you that the melee fighter is WORSE off at those ranges. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />Inside of 30', the archer has better bonuses from the feats due to PBS. Outside of 30' the archer can still shoot while the melee fighter cannot.I fail to see where either of these amounts to a downside for the archer.If the fighter can get in to swing, i can get within 30'.COVER... looking at my 15th level example, the numbers gave the archer a +4 net with one extra swing vs the THF guy. Knock off 4 for cover, which ASSUMES medium vs medium, and iirc i mentioned this in my example, and the to hits crawl back to even. So the net result is the archer gets one more attack at his highest BAB than the corresponding THF.Now if instead you want a TWF, then after feats he gets an even number of swings but is at -2 compared to the archer who is firing across medium vs medium cover.If the shot is across medium vs large or medium vs huge (like say Pcs vs giants or trolls or glabrezus) then this cover bonus is lowere than 4.I will leave it to you to decide how many mid-high level enemies are smaller than the PCs to offset this.This makes no sense to me. as i see going from NO SHOT to SHOT as better than going from BAD SHOT to SHOT, not worse.Understood. We disagree and thats fine. I would rather have seen some numbers to show why, but experience and guesswork is good to.Since i am not really all that concerned about arhcery vs TWF, since TWF seems to be fairly weak, but more concerned wioth archery vs normal melee, as you will see my examples dealth with THF, i am not all that concerned with TWF after 3-5 feats. No one in my group stuck with TWF because the anti-synergy of lower Ac, need for melee, AND the weaker to hits seemed egregious. With arhcery avoiding the need for melee range (thus more full attacks) and the worse to hit (with the double benefit from enahncements) the appeal for archery has not waned. matter of fact, now that the sor is reliably providing +4 arrows and bows for them, and in light of seeing +5 weapons and bows and arrows in just a couple levels for EVERYONE all the time (Chain Extended GMW at 15th) i am looking at a dwarven tank, a barbarian, a ranger and a rogue all looking into figuring out how to keep firing arrows as long as possible before getting FORCED into melee. +10 enhancement to damage AND hit is too much to pass up. With -2 for an extra shot, neither the rogue nor the range ever fires without rapid shot, except for standard attacks. (By comparison, i have seen many a TWF guy chose to only use one attack, for instance when the enemy had above average AC.)I can understand yours as well, tho some parts of it seem a perfect disconnect to me.I will observe again, that i do not think any one element is grossly out of whack nor do i feel that this creates a case of overwhelming imbalance. i think it is far enough out of whack that when they get the option players will almost universally choose to use GMW, PBS, RS and archery over melee except for character personality based decisions. The results are simply better. the second stacking feat (PBS stacking with foc/spec), the double efficiency of RS, and the double enhancement effects from GMW to me all combine to create the imbalance. cutting the GMW bonuses in half (by making bow to hit and arrow damage) and splitting the double feat for RS up seems like it would bring them down to tough choices.thank you, however, for a lively debate.[/QUOTE]

Verification