Improved Rapid Shot feat

[Nail]

Allow me to add the damage figures for the greatsword fighter with Power Attack included.

Thanks, Korak!

BTW, is your method brute force or calculus? I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations...... For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):

Best Power Attack = (2A - B)/4 + 10.5

where

• "A" = Atk - AC, and
• "W" = average weapon damage, including criticals.

As for more than one attack.....I'm not there yet.

Also, people have argued that the archer is getting more full attacks... are none of the enemies in your games moving past the tanks to engage the archers/casters? Sure, if no enemies pressure the archers to make them move, they will get more full attacks, but those are not terribly intelligent opponents.

Heh, heh, heh. Ask DrSpunj's archer about that.

The trick as a DM, of course, is to have a variety of types of combat. If the archer is neutered in most combats, he ceases to be a fun PC-type to play.

The trick as a player is to make sure your PC has more than one schtick, so that you can't be neutered so easily. I mean, really: do you want to be easily neutered?

 

[Korak]

Thanks, Korak!

BTW, is your method brute force or calculus? I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations...... For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):

Thanks, Korak!

BTW, is your method brute force or calculus? I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations...... For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):

My equations are all in that spreadsheet.

The user inputs the target AC, then the spreadsheet calculates the average damage for each possible amount of power attack, then selects the maximum, so yes, it is in essence a brute force method. The exception is for a single attack. I do have an explicit formula for that case: =IF(MIN(attack bonus+2-ac, base attack)>0,MIN(attack bonus+2-ac,9),IF(ac-attack bonus >= 18, base attack,0))

That formula is in excel logic. Basically it says that as a general rule, you should power attack for (your attack bonus + 2 - your target's ac). If that formula produces a number less than one but greater than -17, power attack for 0. Finally, if that forumla produces a number <= -18, then power attack for full.

 

[two]

thanks korak!

The spreadsheet rulz!

In general, archers lag behind as you noted, from between 15-20 usually at lower AC's.

I've looked at a more "optimized" archer setup, with the archer using a +1 "holy" longbow instead of a +3 bow, ditto for the fighter's greatsword (+1 holy).

In general, the more bonuses you can give an archer (flat or not) the better the archer is, because of the increased number of attacks.

With the +2d6 extra "holy" damage per shot (assuming evil bad guys), the greatsword again does more damage than the bow.

AC / Melee Damage/ Archer Damage / WINNER

15 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
16 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
17 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
18 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
19 55.8 45.0 Melee Master
20 55.8 44.3 Melee Master
21 55.8 43.6 Melee Master
22 53.8 42.8 Melee Master
23 51.8 42.1 Melee Master
24 49.8 39.7 Melee Master
25 47.8 37.3 Melee Master
26 36.4 34.9 Melee Master
27 33.4 32.5 Melee Master
28 30.5 30.1 Melee Master
29 27.6 27.7 Archer
30 24.6 25.3 Archer
31 21.7 22.9 Archer
32 18.8 20.5 Archer
33 15.8 18.0 Archer
34 12.9 15.6 Archer
35 10.0 13.2 Archer
36 7.0 10.8 Archer
37 4.1 8.4 Archer
38 1.1 6.0 Archer
39 -1.8 3.6 Archer
40 -4.7 1.2 Archer


It's pretty consistently 10 more than the archer until AC=29. This has the melee monster on 50/50 full attack/charge, and the archer on 75/25 full attack/standard.

The question is, is a lousy 10 points more damage per round to AC's less than 29 worth the price you pay to wade into combat?

(as a side note, if a bard is singing for +2/+2 while these guys are fighting, the spread narrows to 9 or so until AC=29 when the archer wins).

Obviously, I think the archer has it easy. I'd like to see the archer doing 20 less per round at least -- heck, he's not in any danger (or, not as much). But maybe that's just me.

 

[DrSpunj]

Scared off yet?

Nope, I *think* that's what I did, though admittedly not as elegantly as your single equation. Still, I wanted to be able to alter the Crit Range and Multiplier easily to look at different scenarios.

Now, I do wish I knew how to put Power Critical (from CW, gives a +4 to confirm a threat) into the equation. That was the single CW feat I chose for the 2HF (I figured the Archer had IRS, so why not) originally, but wasn't sure how to alter the equation to account for an increased chance to confirm.

Any help there? Any problems with the way I did it in my spreadsheet? BTW, I know the damage calculation at the bottom is UGLY, but I worked several examples out by hand, and I believe it's functional. If I decide to put a lot more time in this I'll break down each IF formula into it's own cell on another Sheet and just bring over the total to the front one.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Korak]

Now, I do wish I knew how to put Power Critical (from CW, gives a +4 to confirm a threat) into the equation. That was the single CW feat I chose for the 2HF (I figured the Archer had IRS, so why not) originally, but wasn't sure how to alter the equation to account for an increased chance to confirm.

ooooh.. Power Critical... I shall have to add that as a parameter too. I'll stop to type more explanation and check out your spreadsheet in more detail when I get off work.

 

[DrSpunj]

Here's it is again with a slight update. The Damage cells on line 58 weren't SUMming the Greater Weapon Spec & Point Blank Shot values because of the way I inserted new rows. You can download this new version or just alter the formulas in B58 and D58 to sum(49:55) in both places in each formula to correct the error.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Korak]

The spreadsheet rulz!

In general, archers lag behind as you noted, from between 15-20 usually at lower AC's.

I've looked at a more "optimized" archer setup, with the archer using a +1 "holy" longbow instead of a +3 bow, ditto for the fighter's greatsword (+1 holy).

In general, the more bonuses you can give an archer (flat or not) the better the archer is, because of the increased number of attacks.

With the +2d6 extra "holy" damage per shot (assuming evil bad guys), the greatsword again does more damage than the bow.

AC / Melee Damage/ Archer Damage / WINNER

15 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
16 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
17 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
18 55.8 45.7 Melee Master
19 55.8 45.0 Melee Master
20 55.8 44.3 Melee Master
21 55.8 43.6 Melee Master
22 53.8 42.8 Melee Master
23 51.8 42.1 Melee Master
24 49.8 39.7 Melee Master
25 47.8 37.3 Melee Master
26 36.4 34.9 Melee Master
27 33.4 32.5 Melee Master
28 30.5 30.1 Melee Master
29 27.6 27.7 Archer
30 24.6 25.3 Archer
31 21.7 22.9 Archer
32 18.8 20.5 Archer
33 15.8 18.0 Archer
34 12.9 15.6 Archer
35 10.0 13.2 Archer
36 7.0 10.8 Archer
37 4.1 8.4 Archer
38 1.1 6.0 Archer
39 -1.8 3.6 Archer
40 -4.7 1.2 Archer


It's pretty consistently 10 more than the archer until AC=29. This has the melee monster on 50/50 full attack/charge, and the archer on 75/25 full attack/standard.

The question is, is a lousy 10 points more damage per round to AC's less than 29 worth the price you pay to wade into combat?

(as a side note, if a bard is singing for +2/+2 while these guys are fighting, the spread narrows to 9 or so until AC=29 when the archer wins).

Obviously, I think the archer has it easy. I'd like to see the archer doing 20 less per round at least -- heck, he's not in any danger (or, not as much). But maybe that's just me.

Thanks for the unintentional props... but it appears you used DrSpunj's spreadsheet, not mine. Also, your numbers don't include power attack. Try my spreadsheet and recompare.

 

[jgsugden]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The numbers mean *nothing* unless you put it in the context of a campaign setting. There are so many variables that you can't incorporate them into any simple mathematical analysis.

If you're doing battle on a huge open field with your enemy beginning combat at nearly 2,000 feet away, the bow will be better. If you're starting combat in a small 10' X 10' room with your opponent 5' away, the melee weapon is more useful. The standard power attack formulas fall apart if your foe has DR that you can't avoid. A holy bow is far better against a Rakshasa than a holy axe. How many attacks will an archer be subject to (as opposed to a melee fighter)? What are the respective odds that a melee fighter and an archer will be flanked?

You can do math til you're blue in the face, but in the end your results will either be incomplete or will be too bundled in conditional statements to be of any use.

The real question is this: Can an archer plan an important role in a PC party? The answer, from my experience, is yes. That is the important question.

 

[two]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The numbers mean *nothing* unless you put it in the context of a campaign setting. There are so many variables that you can't incorporate them into any simple mathematical analysis.

If you're doing battle on a huge open field with your enemy beginning combat at nearly 2,000 feet away, the bow will be better. If you're starting combat in a small 10' X 10' room with your opponent 5' away, the melee weapon is more useful. The standard power attack formulas fall apart if your foe has DR that you can't avoid. A holy bow is far better against a Rakshasa than a holy axe. How many attacks will an archer be subject to (as opposed to a melee fighter)? What are the respective odds that a melee fighter and an archer will be flanked?

You can do math til you're blue in the face, but in the end your results will either be incomplete or will be too bundled in conditional statements to be of any use.

The real question is this: Can an archer plan an important role in a PC party? The answer, from my experience, is yes. That is the important question.

You answered a question, for sure, but it wasn't the question that had been asked.

Ever heard that followup to the ubiquitous "Jesus is the answer?" i.e. "What's the question again?"

Nobody doubts an archer is effective in a party; we are attempting to determine the result of a feat on that effectiveness.

Is it too effective? Is it not enough? Is it just right?

Nobody here thinks a simple numerical analysis "proves" anything but, to me, it does indicate trends -- i.e. archers do very respectible damage and don't have very many serious drawbacks.

 

[DrSpunj]

Thanks for the unintentional props... but it appears you used DrSpunj's spreadsheet, not mine. Also, your numbers don't include power attack. Try my spreadsheet and recompare.

I noticed that, too.

I did want to point out that he identifies his numbers came from setting the Melee Master at 50% Full Attacks and 50% Charging. The way I've set up that sheet, any Charge attack takes the +2 attack from charging and converts it to +4 damage with Power Attack, so there is some Power Attack being used there, but nothing as precise or optimized as what you've got in your spreadsheet. BTW, very nice job with that sheet, Korak.

If I really work on this sheet and spend a lot of time cleaning it up I'll separate out the Power Attack so it can be applied separately to Single Attacks, Charge Attacks and Full Attacks, but right now it's not nearly that functional.

Thanks.

DrSpunj