Power Attack for Ranged Weapons

[hong]

Because once the guy with the greataxe finishes off his opponent he has to move to a new target, which isn't always conveniently right there. Plus there can be other opponents blocking his path.

Someone with a bow just needs to pick a new target and move within 30' of the guy (which usually isn't a problem).

It usually isn't a problem for the guy with the greataxe either.

Also, he's not taking melee damage the entire time (if he gets in melee, it's probably not by choice), while his friend with the greataxe might not be so lucky.

And lo and behold, he does indeed do less damage than his friend with the greataxe. Your point is...?

 

[BlueBlackRed]

It's all a matter of balance of melee vs ranged and this feat removes that balance.

Tough ranged weapons have versatility and power in numbers, but less damage.
Tough melee weapons have less versatility and power in a single swing.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'm thinking of introducing a feat called Called Shot into my game and I wanted to get people's thoughts on it.

It is basically a ranged version of Power Attack with some extra conditions attached (such as the target being within 30 feet). Personally I think it is ok, not too weak, but not too strong either. What do you think?

Olaf the Stout

We're using something similar called Loose Aim, based on the 3.0 Power Attack. Works well so far.

 

[hong]

It's all a matter of balance of melee vs ranged and this feat removes that balance.

Tough ranged weapons have versatility and power in numbers, but less damage.
Tough melee weapons have less versatility and power in a single swing.

This must be some new definition of "balance" that you have concocted in the last 10 minutes.

 

[Storyteller01]

It's all a matter of balance of melee vs ranged and this feat removes that balance.

Tough ranged weapons have versatility and power in numbers, but less damage.
Tough melee weapons have less versatility and power in a single swing.

Shouldn't balance be campaign specific?

 

[hong]

Shouldn't balance be campaign specific?

What BlueBlackRed calls "balance", most other people would call "flavour".

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Wow.
I'm asked for an opinion.
I give it.
I'm asked to defend my opinion.
I do so.
Repeatedly.

If you don't like my opinions, fine.
Do not insult me.

 

[Storyteller01]

Sorry. Not my intention.

 

[Sejs]

I noted it.
I also noted that it was a 1 for 2 exchange in attack loss to damage gain.
Make it a 2 for 1 and it would be balanced, maybe.

In other words treat it like a short sword and not a greatsword.

You can't power attack with a short sword - it's light.

In any event, I just don't see in the comparison you have below (with all the numbers) how that's any different from someone in melee using a battleaxe. Same threat range. If they use it in two hands they even get the more favorable power attack returns.

The main advantage is being able to select targets with the trade off being you'd need more feats to pull it off (PBS and Precise Shot seem ideal pre-reqs), you need two stats to attack well, and you never benefit from the 1.5x str mod for using a weapon two-handed. And you have to pay for your weapon to keep up with your strength; melee get that for free.

A guy in melee with any two-handed martial weapon (greatclub not withstanding) can put out more raw hurt. The archer just gets to choose where his hurt goes a bit more freely.

 

[irdeggman]

Wow.
I'm asked for an opinion.
I give it.
I'm asked to defend my opinion.
I do so.
Repeatedly.

If you don't like my opinions, fine.
Do not insult me.

You are absolutely correct here.


Storyteller01

Shouldn't balance be campaign specific?

Not really. There is a relative level of balance that was inserted into the core rules. And since this is a house-rule it needs to maintain the level of balance that was built into the RAW. If it is being inserted to counter a "campaign" imbalance that is a different matter.

As I recall you had a recent topic on how to get a melee warrior to realize that your game was heavily advantaged towards ranged attackers already.

hong

What BlueBlackRed calls "balance", most other people would call "flavour".

Not in this case.

IMO it appears that the desire to insert a power attack for ranged attacks comes from a desire to up the power of archers. {Daaah}

But most opinions on the boards (not necessarily this thread but in general over the past) seem to indicate that people think archers are more powerful to start with.

Now this opinion arrises from the fact that they can do a great deal of damage at range with little danger of being harmed by melee combatants. The "balance" comes in when one considers that melee combatants "rule" when it comes to melee. That is once they close on their targets (ranged attackers, spellcasters) they tend to deal a lot of damage in a short time. Their feats tend to reinforce this (the power attack/cleave chain is the prime example) while ranged attackers rely on their mobility and ability to attack from outside of melee range.

Ranged attackers can also take advantage of the fact that their ammunition and bow can each have +10 in enhancements/properties that stack (except for the base enhancement bonus). So an archer (non epic) can have a +5 composite bow with +5 worth of other abilities added and still gain +9 worth of different enhancements on their arrows). Now this is balanced by the fact that ammunitions is destroyed so becomes more expensive than the bow - but the flexability is still there.

Increasing the ranged attackers advantage would tip the scales pretty dramatically, IMO.

The present RAW tends to reflect the historical roles of melee and ranged combatants.