Rapid Shot analysis by Sean Reynolds

[Piratecat]

Kugar, I'll experiment in reformatting the table.

[color=white]
[b]AB   10    11    12    13    14    15    16    17    18    19    20 [/b]

 01 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0% -33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 
 02 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0% -33.3% 0.0% 
 03 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0% -33.3% 
 04 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0% 
 05 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 20.0% 
 06 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 33.3% 
 07 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 42.9% 
 08 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 
 09 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 55.6% 
 10 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 60.0% 
 11 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 63.6% 
 12 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 66.7% 
 13 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 69.2% 
 14 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 71.4% 
 15 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 73.3% 
 16 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 75.0% 
 17 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 76.5% 
 18 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 77.8% 
 19 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5% 78.9% 
 20 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.5%[/color]

Close enough. What the heck does "AB" stand for, and what do the headings (row and column) imply?

 

[DonAdam]

Why we don't like rapid shot in my group:

1) Archers get to take full attacks more often than monks

2) Effectively you're getting better than 3 (or 2) feats in one. Every archer will already have Point Blank Shot, either for itself or for precise. That means that effectively Rapid Shot is one feat for the abusive users.
Note that the second shot is not at any less damage than the first. That means that its more like a double weapon. So you've circumvented Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Ambidexterity, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

3) So why are you better rather than even with a double weapon and still paying two less feats? You get your full strength bonus on each pull of the bow. A double weapon gives you only half of your bonus on one of your shots.

4) Archery has too many bonuses available already. Nothing for melee combat gives you anything like being able to stack point blank shot and weapon focus. That's before we get to the stacking of magical bonuses for archery, which means that despite all of the numerical analysis archers are still going to have a higher bonus to hit.

5) Ranged combat already has a tactical advantage by the mere fact that it is ranged. Therefore ranged weapons should be slightly worse, not better, as they are, than melee weapons in all other statistics.

6) Most importantly: RAPID SHOT MAKES NO CONCEPTUAL SENSE. In a 6 second combat round, why can I fire a bow any faster than I can swing a sword? Just to make sure that, when I asked this question, I was being accurate, I asked one of my players.

This player worked for a company in Britain for a while where his job was to learn to fight using medeival weapons so that the researchers could better understand how things worked back then. He assured me that a sword could be swung much faster than a bow could be shot.

Where did it come from then? You guessed it. 1st and 2nd edition.
Rapid shot is an artifact of the minute long combat round, in which archers got a higher rate of fire than melee characters because it could be assumed that they were not having to parry constantly.

In conclusion, we only allow rapid shot in games where everyone will have it because everyone uses pistols (Star Wars, d20 Modern) and it makes sense that they can fire faster, or for Repeating Crossbows, which already require and EWP and take a round to reload.

 

[7thlvlDM]

A wizard's and cleric's spell power increases at an increasing rate. I'm a firm believer that feats should be the same way for non-spellcasters. So rapid shot *should* be better than weapon focus because rapid shot requires 1 prerequisite. The way I see it, there are hundreds of feats out there with only like 5-10% of them actually being chosen, and I'd like to leave rapid shot in the useful 5% rather than the 95% that's just taking up space.

-7th

 

[Psion]

Except that it doesn't work quite the same for archers, except at the very low levels. Assuming they have access to decent equipment, in 90% of cases their to hit bonus is two points higher than that of a melee fighter with equivalent stats - courtesy of MW Arrows (or Magic Weapon) and Point Blank shot.[/b]

It sounds like me like you are trying to factor in other feats and abilities into the analysis. The penalty is still not free; the archer would have had 2 points higher to-hit roll without the shot penalty. If those bonuses are a problem, then they are a problem WITHOUT the presence of rapid shot.

Further, I am not convinced that weapon focus is the definitive point of comparison, as Sean makes out in his article.

 

[Piratecat]

Don, I wonder if you might be mistaken. I think that rapid shot isn't an artifact of 1e/2e rules; it's a 3e attempt to put archers on par with melee fighters, who have the option of fighting with two weapons at once. I think where it is unbalanced is in the fact that (a) one of the two feats it requires is more useful than the two feats required to be a competent two-weapon melee fighter, and (b) archers get more full attacks because they spend less time moving.

 

[drnuncheon]

6) Most importantly: RAPID SHOT MAKES NO CONCEPTUAL SENSE. In a 6 second combat round, why can I fire a bow any faster than I can swing a sword? Just to make sure that, when I asked this question, I was being accurate, I asked one of my players.

This player worked for a company in Britain for a while where his job was to learn to fight using medeival weapons so that the researchers could better understand how things worked back then. He assured me that a sword could be swung much faster than a bow could be shot.

Like in earlier editions, a single roll of the die represents one arrow fired or a series of sword swings, feints, and the like. (I used to think they had changed melee too, until the bit about "Attack Rolls" on PHB 123 was pointed out to me.)

So yes, you may be able to swing your sword faster than you can fire a bow, but not all of those swings are going to be effective attacks.

J

 

[Happiest_Sadist]

Also, Sean messed up his analysis big time. He left out the possibility that the archers will hit with both shots. Without that taken into account, the damage boosts are all wrong.

Ex. When he is using a -4 penalty, he says that when the char has a 70% chance to hit w/o rapid shoe, it only provides a damage boost of 5 percent. In fact it is 2 shots with a 50% chance of hitting (each of which does 50% of average damage on average) instead of 1 shot with 70% chance of hitting (which does 70% of average damage on average). This means that the total average damage done with rapid shot is 100% of average for one hit, and without that it is 70%.

The boost in damage is 30% of the average damage, per blow or over 40% of the average damage after accounting for misses. it is not the 5% he has in the table.

Rapid shot is too good at any price.

On the TWF/RS comparison, it is basically flawed. It neglects that melee fighters are using smaller weapons which do less damage than if they used a two handed weapon. Giving archers rapid shot is like adding a flurry of blows feat for greatsword wielders to compensate them for being unable to dual wield. Also I have noted that in every game I'v played in noone takes TWF (except for one rogue, but that was to maximize sneak attack damage), but ervery archer and normal fighters at high enough levels, and druids who like the produce flame spell takes rapid shot.

 

[Henry]

Moved to D&D rules. The funny part is, both Piratecat and I participated in the thread, and missed this!

 

[Nifft]

If you want to make Rapid Shot less effective, just follow the rules and TRACK ARROW EXPENDITURE, along with weight and PC encumbrance.

The big advantage of melee vs. missile is that you get to keep your sword after you swing it. This is what "balances" melee with both ranged and magic -- those latter two use up limited resources.

Magic arrows aren't free -- they either cost good gold, or one spell per 50 (in advance). Even MW arrows can get expensive at low-to-mid levels.

-- Nifft

 

[mmu1]

It sounds like me like you are trying to factor in other feats and abilities into the analysis. The penalty is still not free; the archer would have had 2 points higher to-hit roll without the shot penalty. If those bonuses are a problem, then they are a problem WITHOUT the presence of rapid shot.

Further, I am not convinced that weapon focus is the definitive point of comparison, as Sean makes out in his article.

Well, sure I am. It's kind of pointless to consider a feat in a vacuum...

However, as I said before, Rapid Shot is too good even before you consider all the other advantages archers have, because unlike TWF, it allows a full strength bonus, uses the same damage die for both attacks, all feats like WF and WS apply to every shot, Point Blank Shot, its prerequisite, is an extremely good feat, whereas TWF requires Ambidexterity, a nearly useless feat, in order to even be useable, etc.