Is this a problem?: Full Attack numbers

[two]

I've been meaning to post this for a while.

I've been keeping careful tabs over the last 54 combat encounters with my bard archer character.

That's a lot of encounters of varied types. On sea. Underground. On the plains. City. Town. Dungeon-esque. Caverns. Rooms, large and small.

My GM is sophisticated, and varies tactics and monsters faily well. He's not a master tacticion, but not a dimwit either. I'm resonably adept at staying out of combat or making myself a non-target.

It's a party of 5 PC's and sometimes a cohort. Started at level 4 and been advancing since then.

This is the statistical breakdown.

Basic bard archer tactics:

Round1: Mirror Image or Inspire Courage
Round2: Inspire Courage or Full Attack (archery)
Round3: Full Attack (archery)/occasional spell


Unless we had no warning, which was 20% of the time, I usually got a long-term prep spell up (MI) before battle was joined, and if lucky Inspire Courage as well. After that, it was arrow after arrow with an occasional spell. Sometimes we know an encounter is coming, so I had some buffs up minutes ahead of actual combat.

In the first 5 rounds of battle (after initiative):

10% of the time I could manage 5 full attacks (fully pre-buffed)
55% of the time I could manage 4 full attacks
20% of the tmie I could manage 3 full attacks
15% of the time I could manage 2 full attacks or less

Sometimes of course I didn't take a full attack when I could in order to cast a spell, heal a pal, or whatever. These are full attack archery attacks actually TAKEN.

Now that maybe sounds not so bad. I mean, I was the archer and did stick in the back and do copious 5' steps and etc.

And the GM did send monsters my way trying to grapple, and 2 times to sunder my bow (I dropped the bow and cast spells after escaping via tumble). So he wasn't content to let me have it easy.

That said.

The full attacks numbers for the melee fighters are quite interesting.

In the first 5 rounds of battle for the melee PC closest to enemy (after initiative),

40% of the time the pure melee fighter could full attack once.
40% of the time the pure melee fighter could full attack twice.
10% of the time they could not full attack at all.
8% of the time they could full attack 3 times.
2% of the time they could full attack 4 or 5 times.

Now you see the very significant difference.

Essentially, I was getting 2 times as many full attacks as the melee guys (minimum), and sometimes slightly more. Hardly ever less.

Add to this ability to deal lots of full attacks my relatively safety away from claws and swords (I was injured about 1/3 as often as the melee guys, thanks to Mirror Image and, of course, distance), I'm beginning to think melee types are, well, shafted.

Melee: attack much less, do more damage per strike, and get hit more.
Ranged: attack much more often, do a little less damage per strike, and get hit less.

Anyone else have this experience?

And if you are wondering, in the long run, my archer did far more average damage per round than the fighter or barbarian (simply to to the increased number of attacks via rapid shot and sometimes haste when buffing was a priority). Plus, "inspire courage" did a lot to mitigate rather low arrow damage at times.

While I know "tanks" are necessary (in part to keep the bad guys off archers like my bard), I actually feel that more classes should have a way to do full attacks, or "partial full attacks" in melee. Like, you get 1/2 your full attack number of attacks after a charge a few times a day, or something.

 

[Stalker0]

In general this is the balance between archers and meleers. While yes you may be doing more damage overall, if the tank is allowed more full attacks then he will start doing a great deal more damage.

Also, there are things that help balance it, DR for example tends to hurt the archer far more than the meleer.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

OTOH if the guys in the back were not dishing out more than me by some statistical measure, why would I bother to protect them at all?

I wish our Bard were half the "problem" yours is.

If you allow a Move + Partial Iterative Attack those optimized damage dealers are going to get a lot of Cleaves...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There's a statistic that's missing here, it seems to me. Namely, when the melee folk aren't getting full attacks, what are the monsters doing?

It's been my experience that the main thing that keeps melee folk from getting full attacks is when the enemy chooses not to trade blows with them, and instead moves. The melee guy loses his full attack, but then, so does the enemy.

Most of the time, when my paladin's party is fighting, say, a dragon (or several), I'd gladly trade my full attack to take away the dragon's, and let the ranger pepper him with arrows.

Which is to say, melee folks' full attacks are linked to their foes'. If the melee folk aren't getting full attacks, then neither are the enemy (unless you're battling a company of archers,) and that's a reasonable trade-off.

Archers also have other issues, such as dealing with damage reduction.

Your data is interesting, but I don't think it illustrates any kind of problem. The two damage dealing types have different strengths and weaknesses.

If anything, the only thing I feel unbalances archers is the Multishot feat. Melee folk have no comparable feat to allow them to move and still get off multiple swings. Perhaps we need a "Lightning Strikes" feat or something which allows for a similar mechanic with melee attacks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If anything, the only thing I feel unbalances archers is the Multishot feat. Melee folk have no comparable feat to allow them to move and still get off multiple swings. Perhaps we need a "Lightning Strikes" feat or something which allows for a similar mechanic with melee attacks.

A while back, the party archer's player, the DM, and I were looking at Manyshot (or Multishot or whatever it is called) and our very strong first impression is that it is way overpowered. Our reasoning was that (1) archers sure did not seem underpowered in 3.5 and (2) no way in hell would it be sane to allow the party Half-orc to get double-damage on his attack for a measly -2 to hit. Yewoocuh!

Is there a consensus on Manyshot here on ENWorld? Too powerful? Okay? Okay with some caveats?

 

[Len]

Is there a consensus on Manyshot here on ENWorld? Too powerful? Okay? Okay with some caveats?

Not at all overpowered. You only use Manyshot when you can't get a full attack. It's not "double damage" considering that you usually do get a full attack (see stats above). And it has that -2 penalty. [Edit: The penalty is actually -4] When I played an archer, I rarely used Manyshot.

Rapid Shot, on the other hand, is one of the best feats there is.

 

[Stalker0]

Not at all overpowered. You only use Manyshot when you can't get a full attack. It's not "double damage" considering that you usually do get a full attack (see stats above). And it has that -2 penalty. [Edit: The penalty is actually -4] When I played an archer, I rarely used Manyshot.

Rapid Shot, on the other hand, is one of the best feats there is.

QFT Manyshot is the redheaded stepchild of rapid shot. As has been mentioned on this thread many times, you get full attacks most of the time when your an archer. When you have a full round to take, then rapid shot is a far better choice.

 

[Question]

Archers are underpowered in the sense that, while you may get full attacks a lot of the time, your damage is very hard to increase.

 

[shilsen]

Archers are underpowered in the sense that, while you may get full attacks a lot of the time, your damage is very hard to increase.

Which is what makes them balanced. Their damage output stays competitive due to the ease of taking full attacks. If the damage was easy to raise, they'd be overpowered.

 

[Zimbel16]

Add to this ability to deal lots of full attacks my relatively safety away from claws and swords (I was injured about 1/3 as often as the melee guys, thanks to Mirror Image and, of course, distance), I'm beginning to think melee types are, well, shafted.

Melee: attack much less, do more damage per strike, and get hit more.
Ranged: attack much more often, do a little less damage per strike, and get hit less.

Anyone else have this experience?

Yes, except for the "do less damage per strike". My bard as a Str 8 archer was doing as much damage as our primary front-liner per attack (and of course, got a lot more attacks/combat). Note, however, that we were under 3.0 rules at the time (so enhancement between arrows and bows stacked - this was wonderful with Greater Magic Weapon, which was a bard spell).

Even after we converted to 3.5 (around LV 13), the average damage per full attack was still higher for low-mid ACs at our level (due to more attacks). Against high ACs, though, it was worse (worse to hit modifier). This is ignoring buffs, other than a GMW (now from the Cleric - I'm still grumbling about that rules change). Manyshot simuarly makes an archer's standard action attack quite a bit stronger than a melee standard action attack.

Overall, my experience is that archer is a strong option from the time they get Rapid shot and Precise shot until the spellcasters can start to do consistant and effective offensive spells.