Improved Rapid Shot feat

[Nail]

Nice spreadsheets, guys! Who says Excel can't be a "fun" program!

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.

I agree, in part. But I believe you're over-playing your hand here, jgsugden. Regardless of the campaign, the numbers remain the same. That's the point.

The question is whether or not IRS is overpowered. That question is NOT so campiagn-specific that it can't be examined....and I know that you, too, like to use math once in a while.

In this particular case, the numbers seem to show that the IRS archer is significantly better than one without, and that the difference between the IRS archer and the "melee monster" greatsword weilder is perhaps not as great as it should be, given the risk.

The numbers provide a valuable tool here, jgsugden. No need to throw the orc-ling out with the bath blood.

 

[Korak]

Nice spreadsheets, guys! Who says Excel can't be a "fun" program!

Got that right

I've added a separate parameter to input base attack. The damage and power attack optimization still work, but I have to work in a method to add the 3rd and 4th attack back in while preserving my method of optimizing power attack based on variable base attack. This is a great way to stretch your brain.


Here's the interim sheet for interested parties. This is intended only for those who want to see the formulas and methodolgy. Please note that this is only accurate for base attack 6-10 for full attack action because I have it hard coded as full attack = 2 attacks. It will give bogus results for base attack 1-5 and 11-20 on the full attack readouts. I'll throw up a mroe complete version later.

Gahh... boards are too slow. I can't get my sheet attached. I'll put it up soon.

 

[Korak]

Here it is. It works for all values of base attack 1-20. I'll work on adding elemental burst weapons, power critical, and a few other things later.

 

[Spatula]

And I think Eltern also brought up a good point: Rapid Shot with Improved Rapid Shot is for Archery what the 3.5 Flurry of Blows has become for Monks. Now, from a strictly mechanical comparison it's not identical as it's possible to get IRS at 6th level while a Monk's FoB penalty doesn't disappear until 9th, but it's a pretty good analogy otherwise, IMO. If no one has problems with a 9th level Monk, would they feel better about IRS with a Prereq of BAB +9?

Or BAB +6, which is what a single-classed monk has at 9th level. That's the difference - a monk only gets 3/4 BAB, a dedicated archer will have full BAB. The monk will also have to spread his stats around while the archer only needs to concentrate on his dex. But that's why Flurry was changed in 3.5 to get rid of the -2 penalty to hit - a monk doesn't have the attack bonus to spare. You can't really compare the two.

 

[DrSpunj]

Or BAB +6, which is what a single-classed monk has at 9th level. That's the difference - a monk only gets 3/4 BAB, a dedicated archer will have full BAB. The monk will also have to spread his stats around while the archer only needs to concentrate on his dex. But that's why Flurry was changed in 3.5 to get rid of the -2 penalty to hit - a monk doesn't have the attack bonus to spare. You can't really compare the two.

I agree that the Monk is stretched much thinner with their ability scores, but realize that IRS already has a BAB prereq of +6 because of Manyshot. That's why I suggested pushing it to +9, which is where the Monk's penalties disappear.

And it's not a direct analogy, no, but I think the similarities are worth noting. I don't think anyone has taken the view that the Archer isn't safer (assuming they're allowed to remain safely behind the Melee Master meat-wall ) than the Melee Master. The difference of opinion seems to revolve around whether or not IRS makes the Archer more effective than he should be given his safe position and other advantages. As difficult as it seems, we're all trying to compare the two, and keep as many of their differences intact in the analysis as possible.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Korak]

Here it is. It works for all values of base attack 1-20. I'll work on adding elemental burst weapons, power critical, and a few other things later.

I have borked up the single attack calculation in my quest to add other features, ignore it. The full attack looks to still be correct. Investigating.


<edit>
It seems that my formula for the single attack (which is in no way connected to the brute force method for full attack calculations) was not a fully general formula as I originally thought. It was consistent with all my observations when I was modelling this with high level (18+) characters. Now that I am analyzing lower end options (where the total attack bonus is often lower than the targets ac), I see that the formula is flawed. Please ignore the single attack readouts until I can fix them.

 

[LordAO]

i.e. archers do very respectible damage and don't have very many serious drawbacks.

Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?

Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.

First, Archers provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking, something melee characters don't need to worry about.

Second, Archers have limited ammunition. Even if you have a thousand arrows, you are still at a disadvantage to the melee character who has no such limit. And when you are fond of Rapid Shot (as most arhcers are), you go throguh ammunition all the quicker.

Third, Archers can't make attacks of opportunity, nor can they flank. This is a huge, huge disadvantage, especially considering the emphasis they place on Dexterity and what combat refelxes could do for them. Yeah, you people always bring up Rapid Shot as an example of how "archery is better than melee," but you often negelect to take into account what even a single attack of opportunity or flanking can add to a battle, especially for rogues.

Fourth, Archers have a limit on the damage they can deal because of the limits on strength adding to bows. Regular bows don't get the benefit of strength at all, and even a mighty composite bow can only add up to +4. And even if an archer wanted to have good damage and used a comp bow, that still means he has two attributes to worry about - Dex and Str. Melee characters, on the other hand, get the benfit of attack AND damage from a single attaribute.

On that same note, melee characters can really do well without a high dex at all. They can simply pump up their strength and con, tank in plate mail, and be juggernauts. Archers, on the other hand, usually stick to lighter armor since they emphasize Dexterity so much.

Fifth, Melee characters have alot more combat options. Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave, etc are often overlooked but can be a huge advantage to a melee character who uses them properly.

Sixth, there aren't anywhere near as many feats for archery as there are for melee. This isn't as big a deal for most characters (who only get 7-10 feats anyway), but it is a big deal for fighters. And more options is never a bad thing. Yes, Rapid Shot is nice, but don't forget about the awesome feats avaiable to melee (Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc).

Seventh, archers need two hands to use a bow. This isn't as big of a drawback as some of the others, but it does take away a significant option available to melee characters - shields.

Eighth, archers have some disadvantages compared to melee, particularly with environmental and circumstantail penalties. Some of these can be overcome with feats such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot, but consider that the melee character didn't have to spend feats because he didn't have those drawbacks to begin with.

Now, in fairness, I will point out that archer has some incredible advantages as well (such as having more flexibility in positioning himself and being able to full attack without having to spend time getting to his opponents). But please, people, don't act like archers have it all easy and don't get anything but advanatages over melee! To say they have no serious disadvantages is blatantly false.

 

[James McMurray]

mighty composite bow can only add up to +4

Not in 3.5.

Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave

With the advent of complete warrior, archers can now sunder, disarm, and (kinda) grapple.

I do agree with everything else you've said though, and have never had a problem with archery (at least not in 3.5, the arrows + bows stuff in 3.0 was too much).

 

[DrSpunj]

With the advent of complete warrior, archers can now sunder, disarm, and (kinda) grapple.

True, but each of those requires another feat slot, while the basic mechanic is available to the Melee Master just for being there. Sure, the Melee Master has Improved feats to make him substantially better at each maneuver, but he still has the options even without the feats.

I do agree with everything else you've said though, and have never had a problem with archery (at least not in 3.5, the arrows + bows stuff in 3.0 was too much).

I agree with that entire statement.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Spatula]

Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?

Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.

First, Archers provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking, something melee characters don't need to worry about.

And something that archers very rarely need to worry about, since 95% of the time they can take a 5' step back and get a full attack off without suffereing an AoO.

Second, Archers have limited ammunition. Even if you have a thousand arrows, you are still at a disadvantage to the melee character who has no such limit. And when you are fond of Rapid Shot (as most arhcers are), you go throguh ammunition all the quicker.

That can be a problem, but only if the party is unable to make resupply runs for some reason.

Third, Archers can't make attacks of opportunity, nor can they flank.

Nor do they have to suffer the side effects of such, namely being subject to a full melee attack from their target. Flanking is only really hugely useful to rogues, anyway. The +2 to hit is nice for other characters if you can get it without losing out on attacks, but not critical.

Fourth, Archers have a limit on the damage they can deal because of the limits on strength adding to bows.

Not true in 3.5, as mentioned.

Fifth, Melee characters have alot more combat options. Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave, etc are often overlooked but can be a huge advantage to a melee character who uses them properly.

Of course, melee characters are also subject to those sorts of attacks more often than archery characters. And grappling isn't a good thing unless you're facing humanoids.

But please, people, don't act like archers have it all easy and don't get anything but advanatages over melee! To say they have no serious disadvantages is blatantly false.

I disagree. I don't think archers are overpowered in 3.5, but they don't have any serious disadvantages. They can't do some things melee fighters can, and the melee fighters can't do some things the archers can.