Rapid Shot analysis by Sean Reynolds

[Quinn]

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

I agree. We're really talking about two very different mechanics: a bonus to an attack vs. an extra attack. If the original intention were that these two feats were of equal importance or balanced with each other, then I would've expect the abilities they provide to be very similar. As it is, they are not.

Weapon focus: +1 to hit with a specific type of weapon and can be used on any attack.

Rapid Shot: Gives an extra attack at a -2 penalty to each attack. Usable with all missile weapons. Can only be used with a full attack option.

I don't see why would want to balance these against each other.

 

[DonAdam]

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.

This is entirely possible. However, note that it is in all ways except one superior to two weapon fighting, that one being the possibility of adding another attack at high levels with an "Improved" version.

I don't buy the "swinging several times for one effective attack roll argument." It made sense in 2nd edition. But with a 6 second combat round? You'll have a hard enough time swinging your sword 4 times at high levels, much less getting feints and parries in there.

Bows should be slightly worse than melee weapons in terms of rate of fire. I think having the possibility of 2-weapon fighting and no rapid shot except on repeating crossbows evens them out a great deal.

Think about it conceptually: it physically takes longer to pull an arrow, notch it, pull, and fire. Add in the time of waiting for a shot that won't hit your companion as he and his move around, and you're lucky to get one shot off every 6 seconds. Not that I think that bows shouldn't get multiple attacks, as I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but only so far, and I think the line is crossed when a weapon that is slower in real life becomes faster.

 

[Quinn]

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.

This seems more of an argument that something needs to be done to Ambidexterity and TWF as opposed to Rapid Shot. Why use those two feats as a comparison? Why not Cleave which also provides an extra attack?

 

[mmu1]

This seems more of an argument that something needs to be done to Ambidexterity and TWF as opposed to Rapid Shot. Why use those two feats as a comparison? Why not Cleave which also provides an extra attack?

Because the circumstances in which Rapid Shot and TWF give you an extra attack are identical (every time you make a Full Attack), and the circumstances in which you get a Cleave are completely different?

As for an argument on "Rapid Shot in a vacuum" see the rest of my post, or several others...

 

[Styracosaurus]

Archers can't do as much damage in a single attack as a melee guy can. Damage Reduction could be kryptonite to an archer. Of course, fighter-types would need access to DR feats, and that might step on Barbarian toes. (depending on what changes in 3.5e)

It seems fair that archers can hit more often, but deal out smaller increments of damage.

Otherwise,
You'll just have to chase that pesky bugger down and clip off his draw finger.

 

[mmu1]

Archers can't do as much damage in a single attack as a melee guy can. Damage Reduction could be kryptonite to an archer. Of course, fighter-types would need access to DR feats, and that might step on Barbarian toes. (depending on what changes in 3.5e)

It seems fair that archers can hit more often, but deal out smaller increments of damage.

Otherwise,
You'll just have to chase that pesky bugger down and clip off his draw finger.

Thing is, archers don't necessarily do less damage per hit than fighters - just less damage than fighters using two-handed weapons. The stacking of magic bows and arrows, as well as Point Blank Shot see to that.

And yes, resources are an issue, but I haven't run across too many groups hey, that say "We have a death wish, so we'll keep the archer on a very tight budget, and will make sure no one casts MW or GMW on his arrows."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I, too, don't find the comparison with Weapon Focus compelling. Any feat that does something other than give a straight numerical bonus should be expected to do something cool in just the right circumstances.

I am with Pkitty on this one.

Not only is PBS + RS better than Ambi + TWF (or monk's Flurry of Blows) on paper, in actual play the archer will get to use his feats 50%-100% more often. Even in a running battle, PBS gives a benefit for a single attack.

I see neither game balance nor simulationist nor genre justification for giving archery that big an edge on top of the already impressive ability to stack bow and arrow enhancements. In fact, if you give them the stacking, their feats should be a shy in raw power.

 

[Pielorinho]

RE: Damage reduction: I think I've had one combat in my two (or three?) years of playing 3E when damage reduction figured prominently. BY the time you're fighting critters with DR, most folks have the tools to overcome it.

Daniel

 

[melkoriii]

It also assumes that every attack being made will be a full attack action. Weapon Focus applies to every attack. I'm not even sure it's fair to compare weapon focus to rapid shot.

This was my thought exactly.

You cant always use Rapid Shot but you can Weapon Focus.

I think Rapid Shot is well ballenced.

 

[Quinn]

Because the circumstances in which Rapid Shot and TWF give you an extra attack are identical (every time you make a Full Attack), and the circumstances in which you get a Cleave are completely different?

As for an argument on "Rapid Shot in a vacuum" see the rest of my post, or several others...

I'm not arguing that you need to consider these things in a vacuum. In fact, it's partly because of that fact that I don't think Rapid Shot is a big issue. Bow wielders have to contend with firing into melee, dealing with enemies using cover, and enemies that engage them hand to hand. They can take Precise Shot and Far Shot to minimize these disadvantages further, however they also do so at the expense of other abilities such as Save boosting feats, Dodge, Spring Attack, etc. They are strong in one area, weaker in other.

Another factor to consider: Fighters in melee have more chances to get an extra attack via AoOs.