Is Rapid Shot more powerful than Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Christian]

Notice: To thrown weapons both TWF and Rapid Shot can apply.

Further notice: To use thrown weapons with Rapid Shot you need either Ambidexterity (to get two attacks at your highest BAB, throwing one weapon in each hand) or Quick Draw (to get more than two attacks, if your DM rules that you can use the feat more than once per round). Otherwise, your throw from your off-hand will be at -4, and/or you'll have to draw another throwing weapon as a move-equivalent action, giving up your iterative attacks (including the extra attack from Rapid Shot).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Agreed, but what I'm talking about is taking Rapid Shot instead of TWF, on a 1-for-1 trade. Customization is allowed under the Core Rules, and I'm not talking about something ambiguous like trading a feat for lay on hands or evasion. We're talking another feat!

If that's unbalancing then I guess the character who chose Weapon Focus: Longbow is unbalanced compared to the character who chose Weapon Focus: Dagger. Its not like I'm suggesting giving him a feat he doesn't meet the prereqs for.

It's worth noting that customization is discussed in the DMG not the PH. It is intended IMHO to be a rule for DMs to change the style and flavor of classes in their world not for primarily for players to exercise their min-maxing abilities. If it were for that, it would be in the PH.

As to the weapon focus: longbow/weapon focus: dagger question, the analogy doesn't fit since those would both be selected as feats by the player. This isn't talking about freely selecting a feat but rather exchanging a pair of (for the character) useless (feat-like) class features for an advantageous one. It's a lot more like a wizard asking to swap out dagger proficiency for longbow proficiency, a fighter who plans to wear light armor asking to swap out medium and heavy armor proficiencies for a bonus feat, or a two handed weapon fighting barbarian asking to exchange shield proficiency for weapon focus. In all of the exchanges I just listed, it's not a matter of whether the feats being exchanged are equal in power a priori but whether or not they are equal in power for the character in question. For the whirlwind attack fighter who plans on spending his entire career in a chain shirt, the heavy armor proficiency is useless. By exchanging it for even a feat as weak as toughness or skill focus, the power of the character is arbitrarily increased. (Which is what you said you didn't want to do). The same is true for your character. By giving up class features which you don't use (ambi/TWF) in exchange for an ability which you plan to make extensive use of (rapid shot), you are intentionally increasing the power of the character (after all, that's why it's useless abilities you're "sacrificing" and useful abilities you're asking for in exchange).

There are plenty of people here who think it's a fair trade. I don't. It's not really very sensible for you to take offense at my analysis that this is a tradeup in power rather than a trade-down. You started the thread asking for analysis on whether rapid shot was more powerful than TWF. So you got an answer you didn't like. . . . If you only want to hear one answer, why ask the question.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

I'd say it's fair enough, though if you swap it out, you should subject it to the same limits (only in light armor, etc). Otherwise, you are getting more than you're giving up, and that isn't what I'd consider balanced.
Now, giving out bonus feats in exchange for "unused" abilities isn't, in my opinion, fair. I might allow armor proficiency for weapon proficiency or weapon focus in a specific weapon, but I wouldn't allow the PC to switch it out for something like Spell Focus. You see, it's all about the reasons, and, in this case, all the reasons are there.
Debate as you will, but this is how I feel about the issue.

[edit] EB, it is in the Players Handbook, on page 94, right hand column, under class. "Class: Some classes already give you plenty of room to customize your character. With your DM's approval, however, you could change some of your class features..."
It goes on to give an example of this.

 

[Kai Lord]

It's worth noting that customization is discussed in the DMG not the PH. It is intended IMHO to be a rule for DMs to change the style and flavor of classes in their world not for primarily for players to exercise their min-maxing abilities. If it were for that, it would be in the PH.

See page 94 of the PHB.

The same is true for your character. By giving up class features which you don't use (ambi/TWF) in exchange for an ability which you plan to make extensive use of (rapid shot), you are intentionally increasing the power of the character (after all, that's why it's useless abilities you're "sacrificing" and useful abilities you're asking for in exchange).

I don't believe it makes the character more powerful in and of itself. It makes him more powerful because I play him as an archer. Since you specifically mention how mighty longbows give the advantage to archers with Rapid Shot, how about if I throw in keen scimitars?

There are plenty of people here who think it's a fair trade. I don't. It's not really very sensible for you to take offense at my analysis that this is a tradeup in power rather than a trade-down. You started the thread asking for analysis on whether rapid shot was more powerful than TWF. So you got an answer you didn't like. . . . If you only want to hear one answer, why ask the question.

Who says I was offended? What, did I need to post the disclaimer, opinions are welcome, but be prepared to hear my (possibly opposing) thoughts in return? This is a discussion forum, dude.

And for the record everyone, of course Rapid Shot would be a "virtual feat" that only works in Light-Armor. Which isn't a problem since he only wears leather.

 

[Caliber]

Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting are the equivalent of Rapid Shot together. Together they both do the same thing Rapid Shot does alone.

Trading out one for Rapid Shot isn't grossly unbalancing, but it IS unbalanced.

 

[Kai Lord]

Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting are the equivalent of Rapid Shot together. Together they both do the same thing Rapid Shot does alone.

If that were the case then Rapid Shot would allow a character to use his off-hand to perform a skill or attack. It doesn't.

Trading out one for Rapid Shot isn't grossly unbalancing, but it IS unbalanced.

People seem to be under the impression that Ambidexterity is worthless by itself. By that logic then Ambidexerity+Rapid Shot is no more powerful than Rapid Shot by itself. That's not true. The Ranger gets three feats at first level. Regardless of how often anyone thinks they will be used, or how useful they will be when used, for a character who wanted to become a TW Fighter, they just saved him two feat slots right off the bat.

Rapid Shot also requires two feats, because it has a prerequisite. So either way, we're talking two slots for the same effect with different weapons.

The 1st level Ranger offers +1 BAB, +2 Fort save, two virtual feats that any character could conceivably get at that level, and Track. I'm not advocating changing one single element of that, and the Customization rules on page 94 of the PHB fully allow for changes in flavor.

 

[Vocenoctum]

two weapon fighting does not give the same effect as rapid shot, it gives you two attack, one at -2, one at -6 as opposed to two at -2.

Two weapon+Ambi gives you two attacks at -2, which is similar enough to Rapid shot that I might allow a player to make that switch (two for one) Looking to get PBS as well is again getting MORE for your money.

The rest comes down to melee vs missile, but the main comparison should be # of attacks at what penalty.

 

[Caliber]

Vocenoctum hit it pretty much on the head. Don't ask whether something is balanced and then get upset when people tell you it isn't.

I still stand by my previous statement that Rapid Shot is worth Ambidexterity AND Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[Kai Lord]

two weapon fighting does not give the same effect as rapid shot, it gives you two attack, one at -2, one at -6 as opposed to two at -2.

For a character who already has Point Blank Shot and Ambidexterity, TWF gives you the exact same thing as Rapid Shot.

Two weapon+Ambi gives you two attacks at -2, which is similar enough to Rapid shot that I might allow a player to make that switch (two for one) Looking to get PBS as well is again getting MORE for your money.

A 1st level fighter can get PBS/RS easier than Ambidexterity and TWF, because Ambidexterity has a high Dex prereq. Never mind the fact that I never stated I was switching out both Ambidexterity and TWF for both PBS and RS.

But the "balance" issue being brought up by some is a complete nonissue. If a Ranger with Rapid Shot and Ambidexterity is "unbalanced" compared to a Ranger with TWF and Ambidexterity, then a 1st level Fighter who spends his two feats on Ambidexterity and TWF is unbalanced compared to the fighter who buys PBS and RS. Utter nonsense.

The rest comes down to melee vs missile, but the main comparison should be # of attacks at what penalty.

So if I swapped out TWF for Quickdraw then it would be balanced? That's crazy. It still frees up a slot that can be used for Rapid Shot anyway.

I definitely appreciate everyone's input, but when I first posted I was under the impression I would be making a specific House Rule and was just deciding which feat I should trade with TWF, and I wanted it to be one that was equivalent or weaker.

The whole debate over whether or not RS is more powerful than TWF is moot; Far Shot, Precise Shot, and Quickdraw are all less useful than TWF so if I thought RS was too much I'd just trade TWF with one of the three lesser feats.

Saying Rapid Shot = Ambidexterity + TWF is silly and wrong anyway, because without PBS you ain't gettin' RS. So we're back to 2 feats = 2 feats. Anyway, it doesn't matter, what I want is wholly and completely covered within the Core Rules; no variants, no House Rules, nothing.

 

[Kai Lord]

Vocenoctum hit it pretty much on the head. Don't ask whether something is balanced and then get upset when people tell you it isn't.

So by definition you believe that a fighter with TWF and Ambidexterity is not balanced against a fighter who chose Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. Sorry, dude, you're free to your opinion, but I think I'll go with the actual designers of the game on this one, thanks. Choosing a more useful feat at 1st level doesn't suddenly make you ECL+1, and it would be ridiculous if it did.

Since the same character (a fighter) can choose either combo at 1st level, the designers are flat-out stating the combos are balanced with each other. Just like Mounted Combat and Ride-By Attack.

I still stand by my previous statement that Rapid Shot is worth Ambidexterity AND Two-Weapon Fighting.

That's like saying Spring Attack is worth Mobility AND Shot on the Run.