Nail said:
The difficulty with the 9th level Monk analogy is that a monk and an archer are not comparable, really. One has to run up and engage in melee, the other does not. The risk/reward ratio is not equal.
Maybe, but the absolute mechanics
are! With a Full Attack Action you're getting an extra attack at your highest attack bonus with a -2 penalty to all attacks, and with IRS or by reaching the 9th monk level that penalty disappears for both. 2WF with a light offhand weapon also gives this mechanic. Anyone feel it would be overpowered to allow a feat in the 2WF chain that removes the -2 penalty at 9th level? Anyone? Have any math to back that up? I don't really know, and I'm curious. Convince me!
Now, I don't want to sidetrack this into a "is melee balanced with archery" debate, but I think some of those points have a place in this discussion.
jgsugden brought up a good one with:
jgsugden said:
Melee attacks can exchange a bonus to hit for a bonus to damage (via the common feat, power attack). Archery (with the exception of manyshot which may not be combined with rapid shot) cannot make this type of exchange ... so the extra amount by which you hit is completely irrelevant. Hitting by 2 or hitting by 12 is the same thing for any given hit.
If doing as much damage as possible is the ultimate goal of a warrior, then the Archer has, currently, no real paths to attain that goal for the advantages he gets by being in the back row. Those advantages are significant, and I agree that he should not match the damage output (on average) of the Melee Master. As you say,
Nail, the risk ratio is out of whack. But I do believe the Archer should be allowed to excel in at least
one part of the damage equation; currently the Melee Master beats him out every time they aren't actually equal.
Both are limited by their weapon damage. For a Medium creature a 1d8 from a longbow is respectable, however with no additional feat investment the Melee Master can use his same two hands to do far more with his Greatsword at 2d6.
Both can put their Strength bonus to good effect, the Melee Master automatically, and the Archer with a composite longbow of the appropriate pull. However, in the thick of combat the Melee Master benefits twofold (both attack and damage) from any caster aiding him with Strength enhancing effects, while the Archer gains neither (increasing his Dex will improve his attack, but unless he gets a bow with a stronger pull, he's not going to be doing any extra damage with Stength enhancement magic). Strength penalties hurt the Melee Master in both attack and damage as well, but if the Archer's Strength drops below the bow's pull he suffers the same damage penalty as the Melee Master and gets to couple that with a -2 for no longer being able to effectively use his bow.
Both can increase the number of attacks they have each round. The Melee Master can choose 2WF with a similar penalty as the Archer's Rapid Shot, and with the investment of more feats can reach up to 8 attacks per round (setting aside for the moment whether it's a suboptimal or even viable fighting style, the system allows for the possibility). Only the Melee Master, however has access to feats like Cleave, and later on, Whirlwind, that give free attacks (whether Standard or Full Attack Actions) that the Archer cannot access at all. (Improved Trip seems like it should be mentioned here, but I'm not sure exactly how.
)
When faced with DR, while both could have the appropriate weapon type in their bag 'o weapons, the Archer can only carry around so many arrows (since they break after nearly every shot), and even if the Archer has some arrows of the right material they likely don't have more than a handful in most situations. Furthermore, Archers don't have access to anything like Power Attack (barring the Peerless Archer's PrC ability) to help them overcome DR. Before 3.5 came out I was under the impression Manyshot was an attempt to mitigate some of this difficulty against DR, since multiple arrows are fired with a single attack, but that didn't pan out when I got the books and saw the feat description, so another advantage for the Melee Master.
Finally, both can increase the likelihood they're attacks will actually hit. Both have access to similar aids, be they magical weapons, the Weapon Focus feats, etc. While Archers do have a couple versions of Bracers of Archery in the DMG, and can increase their total attack bonus with Dexterity enhancing items, Melee Masters can do the same with Strength enhancing items and at the same time get the added benefit of doing extra damage. While those same Strength items would benefit an Archer, it's only after they find a bow with a stronger pull to take advantage of it. Therefore the Archer ends up spending more than twice as much (when you include the bow cost) on items as the Melee Master for the same increases to attack and damage. Still, Bracers of Archery are the one thing the Archer has that the Melee Master can't exactly match, so I guess I have to retract my statement from above: the Archer does actually have something the Melee Master doesn't/can't have, IF he has the Bracers.
When all is said and done, I've always thought of the Archer as a marksman. Of all those things I just got done comparing, I think the Melee Master should keep his advantages with all of them...all but the last. Getting a better total attack bonus, even while doing something nifty like firing a single extra arrow (at no penalty with IRS) just seems like it fits with the Archer's schtick to me. I know most everyone else's opinions will probably be different, but unless some math head provides a solid analysis that convinces me IRS is actually unbalancing when compared to most Melee Masters, I'm probably going to keep that mental image of the marksman in my head as I try to build any Archer characters, and allow IRS as written in my own games.
Thanks.
DrSpunj
(man that was lame.)
