Is Rapid Shot more powerful than Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Kai Lord]

I think he's more referring to that Amb and 2WF are about the equivelant of one feat. Alone, those two feats are really weak.

Earlier you said Rapid Shot wasn't more powerful than TWF, and now you're saying TWF is the equivalent of half a feat. Which is it boy?

 

[Crothian]

Earlier you said Rapid Shot wasn't more powerful than TWP, and now you're saying TWP is the equivalent of half a feat. Which is it boy?

Two different situations. Before I was commenting on the attacking power of Rapid Shot verse to 2WF. That's why I made the melee verse ranged fighting comment. I dropped the ball on that post by totally forgetting your where coming from a trading of feats perspective. PBS and Rapid shot are more powerful then Amb and 2WF.

 

[Kai Lord]

Two different situations. Before I was commenting on the attacking power of Rapid Shot verse to 2WF. That's why I made the melee verse ranged fighting comment. I dropped the ball on that post by totally forgetting your where coming from a trading of feats perspective. PBS and Rapid shot are more powerful then Amb and 2WF.

Are you sure? Each pair gives you an extra attack per round, with all attacks suffering a -2 to hit. Which leaves just PBS vs. Ambidexterity. PBS gives +1 to hit and damage within 30 feet, Ambidexterity negates a -4 penalty for using your off-hand to attack or use skills.

PBS will rarely make the difference between a hit or a miss, a wound or a kill, but it will most likely get more use. Ambidexterity will definitely make the difference between many more successes/failures, but under much fewer circumstances.

EDIT (man, me and the freaking edits tonight): But the real question is:

Is Ambidexterity/Rapid Shot more powerful than Ambidexterity/TWF? For the first, I still have to spend one of my character feats to even qualify for it, so it then becomes Ambidexterity/Rapid Shot/-1 character feat vs. Ambidexterity/TWF.

 

[Kai Lord]

I think we're making this too complicated. A ranger with TWF gets an extra melee attack, a ranger with Rapid Shot gets an extra ranged attack. Period. One or the other. They really don't get more balanced than that. I think I'm just going to go ahead and swap out TWF for RS and call it a day.

Purely core customization covered by p. 94 of the PHB, with no Rule 0 in sight. Boo ya.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

IMO Rapid shot is definitely better than TWF. No bones about it.

It's much easier to be in a position to rapid shot (full round action) than to fight with two weapons (also a full round action).

Rapid shot allows your full strength bonus (up to +4) to apply to the damage. Two weapon fighting allows only half the strength bonus for the extra attack (this becomes more advantageous than rapid shot if the character's strength reaches 26+ but most characters don't get that strong).

Rapid shot requires only one magic weapon and gives you full bonusses from it. Two weapon fighting requires a second weapon which will almost always have a lower bonus than the primary weapon.

Rapid shot is usually done with a composite longbow--a d8 weapon. The off hand attack from TWF has to be a light weapon so unless the character wields a bashing shield, double sword, or double axe, rapid shot will deal more damage just from dice.

By itself, rapid shot is definitely a more powerful feat.

Two weapon fighting has other things going for it though:

Rapid shot leads nowhere. Two weapon fighting opens up the full use of the shield expert feat. Two weapon fighting also opens up the improved two weapon fighting feat (theres' no improved rapid shot feat), Off hand parry, Pin Shield, and Supreme Two Weapon Fighting feat (or something like that) from MotW. It also leads to the Tempest prestige class.

Consequently, I think that two weapon fighting is a viable option vis a vis archery as far as damage production and AC go even though the Two Weapon Fighting feat is individually inferior to rapid shot.

Regarding switching the ranger virtual feats for archery ones, I wouldn't allow it at all as a DM. If you want bonus feats at first level, play a fighter. (If the ranger bonus feats are infinitely exchangeable (or even finitely exchangable but can be changed for combat feats you want), he becomes a strictly superior version of the fighter class with the same saves, 4 skill points and a better skill list, Track, possibly two bonus feats (instead of one) and the ability to use wands of Cure Light Wounds or entangle). If you want to have more useful feats, that's what fighters are there for. If you want to make retroactive changes to the character, see about changing some ranger levels for fighter levels.

 

[Kai Lord]

IMO Rapid shot is definitely better than TWF. No bones about it.

We'll see.

It's much easier to be in a position to rapid shot (full round action) than to fight with two weapons (also a full round action).

That's a situational condition entirely dependent on how the combatants choose their actions, and how the adventure is set up. What you can definitively say is that in every ranged battle Rapid Shot will be more effective, and in every melee combat TWF will be more effective.

I could just as easily say that TWF is better because most fights start off at range, then are mostly conducted up close once the combatants move in on each other, but again, that's entirely circumstantial.

Rapid shot allows your full strength bonus (up to +4) to apply to the damage. Two weapon fighting allows only half the strength bonus for the extra attack (this becomes more advantageous than rapid shot if the character's strength reaches 26+ but most characters don't get that strong).

The +4 comes from two specific weapons, which admittedly aren't altogether uncommon, but there are no core versions of cleave, power attack, or expertise which all stack nicely with TWF.

Rapid shot requires only one magic weapon and gives you full bonuses from it. Two weapon fighting requires a second weapon which will almost always have a lower bonus than the primary weapon.

Yet if you're disarmed or sundered you just punish them with your other weapon. If that happens to the archer he's f**ked.

Regarding switching the ranger virtual feats for archery ones, I wouldn't allow it at all as a DM. If you want bonus feats at first level, play a fighter.

Who said anything about bonus feats? I want the exact amount the PHB Ranger offers.

(If the ranger bonus feats are infinitely exchangeable (or even finitely exchangable but can be changed for combat feats you want), he becomes a strictly superior version of the fighter class with the same saves, 4 skill points and a better skill list, Track, possibly two bonus feats (instead of one) and the ability to use wands of Cure Light Wounds or entangle).

The 1st level Ranger already is a strictly superior character than the 1st level Fighter. The changes I'm looking for are purely flavor, with the added bonus of being more effective based solely on the way I play. And they're covered by the Core Rules.

If you want to have more useful feats, that's what fighters are there for. If you want to make retroactive changes to the character, see about changing some ranger levels for fighter levels.

Why? I'm not going to play in your campaign, I just would like to customize my character within the bounds of the core rules, without using Rule 0. Your refusal to allow such a customization is wholly supported by the rules, but no differently than if you vetoed clerics who didn't choose patron deities. Its the DM's option, but character customization is not a house rule as long as you balance it out.

And that's the question, is my customization balanced? Whether or not you allow customization is irrelevant. Its a core rule and I'd like to take advantage of it without abusing it.

 

[Marshall]

What the heck is TWP?

 

[Xarlen]

Tiny Weighted Penguins.

 

[Kai Lord]

What the heck is TWP?

What are you talking about? There certainly isn't any reference to it in any of my posts.

 

[Xarlen]

Okay, let's disect this.

A ranger gets 4 feats at first level. His first level feat, Track, and Ambi/TWF. 5 if he's human.

A fighter gets 2 feats at first level. 3 if he's human.

Yes, a fighter could spend his 2 feats on Ambi/TWF, but that's all of his feats. A ranger gets them FOR FREE.

Now, are you going to tell me trading 2 feats for 1 feat is overpowering?

Edit: Kai reminded me of Track.