Improved Rapid Shot feat

[Darklone]

Hmm. How often is Enlarge Person used on archers in your group? Might be worth it...

Question: An enlarged bow would do more damage due to size, but would you rule that a mighty composite bow would be adjusted to the increased strength (+2) of the wielder???

 

[James McMurray]

I forgot about enlarge person. Even then though, +2 damage isn't worth a feat (at least not for an archer). Unless you have tons of feats to spare.

I wouldn't allow the bow to increase its strength bonus. You want a higher strength bonus, you have to pay more.

 

[two]

Hmmm different results

Hi Korak --

I'm using Dr.SpunJ's updated spreadsheet, it's easier for me, a novice, to read and modify.

My results differ just a bit. I'm using an archer with minor bracers of archery, and both the archer and the greatsword are "holy" (generally one of the best enchantment types).

Assumptions: 50/50 full attack/charge+power attack for the melee guy, 75/25 full attack/single attack for archer (forget about manyshot right now).

Results:

AC Melee No IRS Imp.RS Difference
15 55.8 48.3 48.3 0.0
16 55.8 48.3 48.3 0.0
17 55.8 47.6 48.3 0.8
18 55.8 46.8 48.3 1.5
19 55.8 46.0 47.6 1.5
20 55.8 45.3 46.8 1.5
21 55.8 44.5 46.0 1.5
22 53.8 42.0 45.3 3.3
23 51.8 39.4 44.5 5.1
24 49.8 36.9 42.0 5.1
25 47.8 34.3 39.4 5.1
26 36.4 31.8 36.9 5.1
27 33.4 29.3 34.3 5.1
28 30.5 26.7 31.8 5.1
29 27.6 24.2 29.3 5.1
30 24.6 21.6 26.7 5.1
31 21.7 19.1 24.2 5.1
32 18.8 16.5 21.6 5.1
33 15.8 14.0 19.1 5.1
34 12.9 11.4 16.5 5.1
35 10.0 8.9 14.0 5.1
36 7.0 6.4 11.4 5.1
37 4.1 3.8 8.9 5.1
38 1.1 1.3 6.4 5.1
39 -1.8 -1.3 3.8 5.1
40 -4.7 -3.8 1.3 5.1


It's not completely huge, but it's significant. For the AC's the archer really "cares" about (has trouble hitting sometimes, AC >25 or so) the damage increase is 5 per round. Granted, this is spread out over 3 attacks, so it's worse than weapon specialization (assuming 3 arrows hit). On the other hand, it's not much worse, and you don't have to be a fighter4 to take it. It's an "average" damage amount increase, and also helps to critical more often (confirming threats).

But, point taken. IRS is good, strong, solid, but not overwhelming. An extra 5 points a round ain't gonna kill anyone.

So, maybe it's ok?

 

[DrSpunj]

I'm using Dr.SpunJ's updated spreadsheet, it's easier for me, a novice, to read and modify.

Hey, thanks for modifying the sheet that way. I thought about doing that as well, splitting the Archer column into both with and without IRS going. That's good to know.

The other thing I thought of as I drove into work this morning is that I check for a natural 1 always failing at lower ACs, but don't bother checking for needing a natural 20 to hit the higher ACs.

Creating a spreadsheet accounting for all these things could become a full time job!

Anyone figure out how Power Critical (adds +4 to confirm a threat) would enter the calculations? Nail's provided the basic formula (sans feat) a page or two back, but how do you account for a 20% increased chance to confirm?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[James McMurray]

An extra 5 points a round ain't gonna kill anyone.

Except that poor guy who would have been at -5 if the archer hadn't had IRS.

 

[jgsugden]

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.

Yes and no. The calculations remain the same, but those calculations do not reveal how useful that feat is going to be in a campaign unless you put them in context.

As another gross example. How valuable is the improved rapid shot feat in a campaign that doesn't aloow bows? How valuable is it in a campaign where the only manufactured weapons are bows?

Are you likely to see such a massive shift in the utility of this feat between campaigns that are acutally played? No, but you will see a lot of variance that will result in a significant difference in how useful this feat is going to be.

Does your DM throw armies of low level stuff at your party instead of one big creature? If so, this feat is less useful as these smaller creatures tend to have an AC that you hit with a 2, even with the penalty for RS.

Does the DM throw monsters at you the force you to move a lot during combat? If so, this feat is less useful as you only have a standard action to fire your bow instead of a full round to use rapid shot.

Does the DM throw a lot of high AC foes at you? Does the DM use small dungeon areas that make archery difficult? Etc ...

The numbers remain the same, but we're looking at balance which is a function of more than just the numbers. A feat that grants a huge benefit, but may only be used rarely might be balanced with a feat that grants a small benefit at all times.

To an extent, this is true when analyzing the balance of any feat or ability, but in the case of archery, it tends to be more true than usual. The effectiveness of archery as a combat tool is tied very closely to campaign design. If a DM puts a winding corridor into the game, archery will be very difficult in that passage.

In the end, unless we can figure out how often a PC will be able to use a full round action to attack his foe compared to the time other PCs would have time to act, we really can't figure out how useful this feat will be. The same, to a good extent, can be said about rapid shot. I've been in sections of a campaign where archery was useless. I've also played in entire campaigns where an archer could use a full attack action in almost every round.

The only way to figure out if this feat is abusive in your game is to try it out. Play a few sessions. If the archer has the feat, keep track of the times he hit because he has the feat. If he doesn't have the feat, keep track of the number of times (during a rapid shot) that he would have hit if he had the feat. During this time, keep track of the total number of rounds of combat as well to help put your other results in context. Look at those results and see how useful the feat has been.

And if you don't have an archer ... why the heck do you care enough to have read this much of this thread?

 

[DrSpunj]

And if you don't have an archer ... why the heck do you care enough to have read this much of this thread?

Because he's a DM, and one of his players (that's me ) does have an archer.

Furthermore, I believe he designed a mid-level 3.5 Ranger Archer for a one-shot months ago, and got to experience archery firsthand. He can, of course, answer you far better on specifics, but I believe his lasting impression of archery was that even with the 3.5 changes it was still a very powerful style.

Now, since IRS was just recently released with Complete Warrior, and I was interested in the possibility of picking up IRS at 9th level with my PC, we both wanted to go over it and look at some numbers, to figure out whether it was something we wanted at our game table. We're not in any kind of a rush as my PC is just now nearing 5th level and Nail isn't one to hand out mucho XP with every session.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Korak]

Hmm. How often is Enlarge Person used on archers in your group? Might be worth it...

Question: An enlarged bow would do more damage due to size, but would you rule that a mighty composite bow would be adjusted to the increased strength (+2) of the wielder???

Don't forget the -2 to hit with ranged weapons imposed by enlarge person... -2 dex and -1 for size... hmm, sounds like a very limited power attack for ranged characters... -2 to hit for +2 avg dmg.

 

[RigaMortus]

..

You also forgot to mention, as a disadvantage, that bows are hella easier to Sunder than swords are.

Yeah, they can take a 5' step to avoid an AoO, but when their opponent readies a 5' step and Sunder, they're going to be SOL.

 

[Spatula]

That some people can be arguing that IRS is overpowered. One might also say, "Improved Rapid Shot is only really hugely useful for archers, anyway. The +2 to hit is nice... but not critical."

Some "+2 to hit" is overpowered, but other "+2 to hit" is "nice, but not critical"?

The +2 bonus from flanking comes at a cost. The +2 bonus from IRS comes at a cost too, of course - a feat.