Is this a problem?: Full Attack numbers

[Zimbel16]

Damage

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.

I'm unclear as to the problem you describe.

Negatives:
1) They are limited by the Str mod of the bow.
2) They can't get the nice 1 1/2 multiplier for a 2-H weapon.
3) They can't use power attack.

Positives:
1) Although their enhancement bonuses between arrow and bow don't stack, all other magical effects do. This means that hypothetically, they can have +23 in total bonuses (+9 non-enhancement from the arrow, +9 non-enhancement from the bow, +5 from GMW) as opposed to +14 for a melee weapon (+9 non-enhancement from the weapon, +5 from GMW)
2) They have fewer problems with DR, since changing ammunition is typically cheaper than changing melee weapons (and again, the effects of arrow and bow stack).
3) (Greater) Bracers of Archery.
4) They gain point blank shot.

Frankly, the only really strong advantage I note for melee for damage is Power Attack. Other than that, I'm only noting roughly a +13 damage advantage for 2-H melee (per attack, assuming max Str for a 1/2 orc Fighter at LV 20), or +7 for 1-H. In some cases, the ability to relatively easily pierce DR with the primary weapon will make up for this, with damage to spare. In the event that the archer is concerned about this, though, they could afford +5 (+3 for 1-H) (total) arrows to make up the difference (if their current ruleset and bow will allow d6 additional damage per +1 onthe arrow), at least in some combats. Frankly, I'd likely feel that the ability to attack earlier and more often would suffice.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Tell that to the ranger in our party with favoured enemy(human), and a +2 mighty bow(+4 str) of human bane...

Over 50% of our targets are human, and she gets 1d8+12+2d6 with every shot of her rapid shot full attack (was 3 attacks per round, now it is 4 attacks per round).

The fighters, even armed with fullblades can't touch this damage output.

The only thing that the fighters can do more of is (a) pump their strength and (b) power attack.




I recognise that this is a corner case in many respects (e.g. optimised for tackling the main targets, the fighters could all get humanbane swords too).

However, I concur with the two's original post: archers get risk free full attacks very frequently, while melee fighters find it much harder to get them in the first place, and are at far greater risk for doing so (swapping full attacks with a giant or dragon is a quick way to get dead in most campaigns).

If I was designing the next iteration of the game, I'd design this factor out. Essentially the balance between missile and melee combat should just be 'less risk, less damage'. Full attacks illustrate and exacerbate the problem.

Sure, we can live with it, but I don't think it is any surprise that some more recent games (Spycraft, True20) have removed iterative full attacks IIRC.

Cheers

 

[Zimbel16]

However, I concur with the two's original post: archers get risk free full attacks very frequently, while melee fighters find it much harder to get them in the first place, and are at far greater risk for doing so (swapping full attacks with a giant or dragon is a quick way to get dead in most campaigns).

If I was designing the next iteration of the game, I'd design this factor out. Essentially the balance between missile and melee combat should just be 'less risk, less damage'. Full attacks illustrate and exacerbate the problem.

I actually don't have a problem with risk (after all, if everyone is an archer, the archers are the front line); I merely think that melee and missile should be able to deal out roughly the same amount of damage in the average combat. Unless one heavily tilts things towards Melee (all encounters are in small rooms with plenty of cover), that does not appear to be the case in the current edition.

On the other hand, I think that this missile/melee imbalance is pretty minor, compared to either vs. a high-level spellcaster.

 

[moritheil]

I'm unclear as to the problem you describe.

Negatives:
1) They are limited by the Str mod of the bow.
2) They can't get the nice 1 1/2 multiplier for a 2-H weapon.
3) They can't use power attack.

Positives:
1) Although their enhancement bonuses between arrow and bow don't stack, all other magical effects do. This means that hypothetically, they can have +23 in total bonuses (+9 non-enhancement from the arrow, +9 non-enhancement from the bow, +5 from GMW) as opposed to +14 for a melee weapon (+9 non-enhancement from the weapon, +5 from GMW)
2) They have fewer problems with DR, since changing ammunition is typically cheaper than changing melee weapons (and again, the effects of arrow and bow stack).
3) (Greater) Bracers of Archery.
4) They gain point blank shot.

Frankly, the only really strong advantage I note for melee for damage is Power Attack. Other than that, I'm only noting roughly a +13 damage advantage for 2-H melee (per attack, assuming max Str for a 1/2 orc Fighter at LV 20), or +7 for 1-H. In some cases, the ability to relatively easily pierce DR with the primary weapon will make up for this, with damage to spare. In the event that the archer is concerned about this, though, they could afford +5 (+3 for 1-H) (total) arrows to make up the difference (if their current ruleset and bow will allow d6 additional damage per +1 onthe arrow), at least in some combats. Frankly, I'd likely feel that the ability to attack earlier and more often would suffice.

It's not just Power Attack - it's the entire Power Attack chain. Power-attacking meleers become more respectable with Cleave and Improved Sunder. Sundering, in particular, is really where melee types shine and ranged attackers can't compete (Even with Ranged Sunder, one only deals half damage with arrows. Yuck.)

Magic arrows allow an archer to deal more damage, but they also cost more. Of course, at sufficiently high levels, this is no longer a big deal. The main problem archers have is that they can be negated by lower-level spells than it takes to negate melee fighers (compare Wind Wall to Forcecage or Wall of Force.)

Overall, though, I must agree that it takes more tactical savvy to play a front-line fighter effectively than it does to play an archer or mage effectively.

 

[Ragnar69]

Don't forget that PCs standing between the archer and the target provide the target with soft cover, that´s +4 AC which is not negated by Precise Shot.

 

[moritheil]

Don't forget that PCs standing between the archer and the target provide the target with soft cover, that´s +4 AC which is not negated by Precise Shot.

Yes; of course, it is negated or reduced by things that reduce or ignore cover bonuses.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Yes, I suppose that Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, and eventually Improved Precise Shot are superior choices for the archer. It is not clear to me that is a strong argument Manyshot is not overpowered. Lousy damage while not doing a full iterative attack seems like the only downside of being an archer.

How many DMs would allow this into their campaign?

MANYHIT [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Str 17, Power Attack, Cleave, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: As a standard action, you may make two melee attacks at a single opponent. Both attacks use the same attack roll (with a –4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).
For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional melee attack, to a maximum of four melee attacks at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each attack after the second adds a cumulative –2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of –6 for three arrows and –8 for four).
Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each attack.
Special: Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.
A fighter may select Manyhit as one of his fighter bonus feats.

It is often said that one of the key advantages of melee combat over ranged attacks is Power Attack. Is not this vastly better than Power Attack for most fighters? Do archers really need a Super Ranged Power Attack feat?

 

[Len]

Yes, I suppose that Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, and eventually Improved Precise Shot are superior choices for the archer. It is not clear to me that is a strong argument Manyshot is not overpowered.

Considering the miniscule amount of damage that was caused by Manyshot over the 10 levels that I had it, I have to say that it was not a noticeable factor in our campaign. I realize this is only my experience, but I have actually played a character with the feat. It just doesn't come into play often enough to be overpowering, and the -4 penalty is significant.

Lousy damage while not doing a full iterative attack seems like the only downside of being an archer.

There's also the lower amount of damage per arrow, which makes it harder for an archer to get through DR than a melee fighter. I found that to be a handicap whenever we fought something with DR.

 

[sumi]

Tell that to the ranger in our party with favoured enemy(human), and a +2 mighty bow(+4 str) of human bane...

Over 50% of our targets are human, and she gets 1d8+12+2d6 with every shot of her rapid shot full attack (was 3 attacks per round, now it is 4 attacks per round).

The fighters, even armed with fullblades can't touch this damage output.

The only thing that the fighters can do more of is (a) pump their strength and (b) power attack.

I am that ranger in question. I am currently 11th level (10th level Ranger 1st level fighter) When not fighting humans I do 1d8 +7 4 times with rapid shot (+4 Str +1 bow +2 weapon specialisation (the DM allows all fighter types to weapon specialise.)) This makes for a very interesting fight when the monsters have DR to piercing weapons. I also do this mainly at the front as the other main fighter does not usually turn up.

So with every single one of my feats put into fighting with the bow I do not think it is unbalanced. People have also forgot about the feat of cleave and the fact you do not get attacks of opportunity when they flank you. Archery is fairly balanced in 3.5 in my opinion.

I also have so far used manyshot about 3 times since I gained it as a feat. Not that useful. If you miss then you do no damage all round

 

[Stalker0]

Let's also not forget you have an archer with an 18 str...of course your going to do a lot of damage