Power Attack for Ranged Weapons

[RigaMortus2]

The option is available and it is not available to a melee combatant. The most often used option is instead specific ammunition for specific targets - an archer doesn't have to change weapons to maximize effect fro magic weapons and arrows weigh a heck of lot less than do several different melee weapons.

Huh? Two-Weapon Fighters can have +10 enhancements on both weapons... Or are TWFighters not "melee combatants"???

 

[Darklone]

I never troll and only unintentionally insult people.

This is at least the second time within this thread you have insulted someone who doesn't agree with your opinion. Generally that falls under the scope of trolling. But since we disagree on what flavor and mechanics mean I guess we can likewise disagree on wht trolling means too.

Awww, come on, it's our dear hong. He didn't get that many posts while only making sense.

But he has style.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

It seems to me that giving an archer the option of trading a full attack or a manyshot for a single attack with power attack is fair enough. At say level 6, the archer can choose between 1 shot at -6 to hit for an extra 12 points of damage, 1 shot at -4 for double normal damage (using manyshot) or 3 shots, 2 at -2 to hit and 1 at -7 for normal damage (using rapid shot). All three look to me like balanced options with different benefits and disadvantages. Provided you don't allow the archer to power attack on every shot in a full attack, or to combine your power attack with manyshot, then I don't see it as unbalanced. I would suggest making the called shot a full round action, rather than a standard action, if you are worried about it being too strong. The only problems I can see come from combining this new option with spells, such as Storm of Arrows or Hunter's Mercy, but making it a full attack action should limit those options enough. Personally, if you restricted this option to within 30' only, I'd consider it a bit underpowered compared with manyshot, and would be unlikely to take the feat.

Cheers,
quetzyl

It is a full round action. The only way to make it a standard action is to take another feat called Improved Aim Shot. This would then make it a standard action. However I am not proposing to introduce that feat. I am only thinking about adding Called Shot into the game.

Olaf the Stout

 

[irdeggman]

Huh? Two-Weapon Fighters can have +10 enhancements on both weapons... Or are TWFighters not "melee combatants"???

Good point.

But they still don't have the ease of customization (via specialized ammunition) although they can get to a +10 with each weapon.

 

[irdeggman]

Right, but those ranged weapons put out 3d8 to 4d10 hp per hit, and fire with bursts. A high roll against a low AC target could be looking at 120 pt of damage from a 1st level character (without a critical!). He had a reason to worry.

And that was the point of a setting that had mechanics inserted that ended up with a need for balance on a different level.

In that case there was a need to find a way to balance out melee combatants.

Adding feats like this to that type of setting, where ranged attacks already do a lot more damage than melee ones do forces the question of how much is enough?

 

[hong]

Good point.

But they still don't have the ease of customization (via specialized ammunition) although they can get to a +10 with each weapon.

Demonstrate how this impacts on the relative balance of ranged power attack.

 

[hong]

And that was the point of a setting that had mechanics inserted that ended up with a need for balance on a different level.

Demonstrate how adding ranged power attack adds a "need for balance on a different level".

What the heck does "balance on a different level" mean anyway?

Adding feats like this to that type of setting, where ranged attacks already do a lot more damage than melee ones do forces the question of how much is enough?

Translation: I have no more substantive objections, so I'll resort to thin-end-of-the-wedge scaremongering.

 

[Storyteller01]

And that was the point of a setting that had mechanics inserted that ended up with a need for balance on a different level.

In that case there was a need to find a way to balance out melee combatants.

Adding feats like this to that type of setting, where ranged attacks already do a lot more damage than melee ones do forces the question of how much is enough?

No, the need was to give a character using less than effective tactics a fighting chance, since he refused to budge on the matter. Per the books, the 'balance' was deliberately tweaked to make ranged combat lethal, and cover bonuses a near requirement. The creators intended for players to fear a one hit kill. The player's lucky I was willing to accomadate.


I can understand catering to the close combat crowd. But I have to ask, how does making ranged combat effective at range throw off the balance, aside from learing the hard way why ranged combat was always included on the battle field?

 

[irdeggman]

Translation: I have no more substantive objections, so I'll resort to thin-end-of-the-wedge scaremongering.

Make that yet another occurance of insulting a poster.

 

[irdeggman]

No, the need was to give a character using less than effective tactics a fighting chance, since he refused to budge on the matter. Per the books, the 'balance' was deliberately tweaked to make ranged combat lethal, and cover bonuses a near requirement. The creators intended for players to fear a one hit kill. The player's lucky I was willing to accomadate.


I can understand catering to the close combat crowd. But I have to ask, how does making ranged combat effective at range throw off the balance, aside from learing the hard way why ranged combat was always included on the battle field?

The point I was trying to make, albeit unuccessfully, was that the "setting" put things out of the balance that was created by the core D&D rules.

This out of balance (even if by design) caused the issue that melee combatants were tremendously weakened in relation to ranged attackers. The fact that one player wanted to play a melee combatant and that put him at odds with the setting "forced" the discussion of how to better balance things so that he could run a viable PC. IIRC the solution discussions involved not nerfing anti ranged attack defenses that his PC might use so that there were some things he could actually do.


When a setting - such as the one you had described makes substantial changes to core mechanics a careful eye must be applied to ensure that the overall "balance" is maintained.

Every type of character is supposed to have a role in a game and be able to contribute equally, albeit not at the same time. Some characters are supposed to be good at interactions (e.g., bards) and if the game has no interactions then that character's value has been reduced. Some characters are supposed to be good at melee combat - and if there is no melee (only ranged) combat then their value has been reduced. Some characters are supposed to be good at ranged combat and if there no raned (only melee) combat then their value has been reduced. And so on . . .

That is is what "balance" is all about. Maintaining a viable role in a game.