Rapid Shot analysis by Sean Reynolds

[Rackhir]

I have a long stock rant as to why archers getting to stack bow and arrow bonuses is not unbalanced, but I'll limit it to one point.

1) If you get rid of the stacking are you going to drop Shield and Armor bonus stacking? That is one of the benefits that the melee types get and it has the same kind of effect ( +5 armor, +5 shield = +10 to armor bonus).
.....After all magic vestment scales at the same rate as GMW and it is also a third level spell. Most people do not usually think of this spell for some reason, except for clerics casting it on themselves, but it can be cast on other's shields and armor just like GMW can for weapons. Granted it is not also on the Arcane spell lists like GMW, but that doesn't negate it's value or effectiveness

Rapid shot also looses it's value as level increases. The increase between 1 shot and 2 is obvious, but it is substantially less between 4 shots and 5 (11+ BAB and Haste) so the analysis should look at it as part of the total number of attacks, not just between Rapid Shot and One attack.

Two weapon fighting sucks. It takes waaaaay to many feats to get any good with it, but it does also eventually have stubstantial advantages in that it can ultimately double the total number of attacks. However, problems with TWF don't justify nerfing Rapid Shot, which is clearly designed to help balance archers vs TWF.

 

[mmu1]

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.

But archers won't need to suffer as many AAO's as melee fighters will.

They're also at much lower risk for getting poisoned, energy drained, grappled, swallowed, affected by fear auras, flanked and sneak attacked, loosing weapons and armor to monsters that destroy them... I don't think there are nearly enough drawbacks to playing an archer to balance this out.

 

[Kugar]

PC thanks!
AB = Attack Bonus going down the side
Armor Class goes across the top.
I should know better

Archers are more powerful by and large. Rapid shot is one reason because there is no one feat that gives melee fighers an extra attack without haveing them stop the fast Base attack bonus advancement. TWFs need to spend twice the amount of money that archers do on weapons, and the archer can gain an advantage by using magic arrows. The archer PrCs are some of the strongest available. In addition the archer gets more full attack actions than the melee figher.

These are ofset only by the DR problem. At high and mid levels GWM may negate this or the archer is forced to spend money firing expensive arrows.

Kugar, I'll experiment in reformatting the table.

[color=white]
[b] Ac ==>   10    11    12    13    14    15    16    17    18    19    20 [/b]
Attack Bonus
 01 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 020.0% 000.0% -33.3% 000.0% 100.0% 
 02 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 020.0% 000.0% -33.3% 000.0% 
 03 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 020.0% 000.0% -33.3% 
 04 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 020.0% 000.0% 
 05 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 020.0% 
 06 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 033.3% 
 07 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 042.9% 
 08 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 050.0% 
 09 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 055.6% 
 10 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 060.0% 
 11 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 063.6% 
 12 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 066.7% 
 13 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 069.2% 
 14 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 071.4% 
 15 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 073.3% 
 16 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 075.0% 
 17 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 076.5% 
 18 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 077.8% 
 19 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5% 078.9% 
 20 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 089.5%[/color]

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

 

[Urbanmech]

Would Rapid Shot be a bit more balanced if it gave -2 to hit and damage for each attack that round (minimum of 1)? You fire faster but your shots aren't aimed as well so the damage is reduced.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree that rapid shot is an artifact of the 1st edition rules that let missiles weapons be fired more often in a round than melee weapons could be used to attack.

I also agree that it was a highly bad idea, especially given the inherent advantages of a ranged attack to give feats and PrC's than emproved it significantly over melee attacks.

Considering that PBS stacks with WF, and that rapid shot gives most PC's thier first oppurtunity at multiple attacks per round, it has been my experience that archers quickly become the dominating non-spell casting force in the game. A two-handed weapon fighter can approach or even beat thier damage output on a theoretical basis, but there are so many situations in which a melee weapon simply won't do the job and so many times that the melee fighter must manuever to gain position that in practice archers do better. Add to this that front line fighters tend to get waxed pretty hard alot more often than archers, and I've often wondered whether frontline fighters have been reduced to support characters for the archers. I myself kinda wonder why there is a point in playing any other kind of fighter, and if I was playing in a tournament match with 'build your own characters' I'd seriously discuss with my party an all archer option (all cleric would be the other odd choice deserving serious consideration).

On a logical level, it would make ALOT more sense to have a 'rapid swing' feat than a rapid shot feat, considering how much easier it is to pack a few good swings into 6 seconds than a few more shots. If you are opposed to a rapid swing feat, why aren't you opposed to a rapid shot feat considering all the advantages of being able to attack from a distance in the first place?

 

[Berk]

I also agree that rapid shot is a left over from 1st and 2nd edition. But then again I say let the archers have a decent feat since they suck. I just find it way too easy to take out archers. There are so many different ways for each scenario. Especially if you have mages or sor's or psions or rogues or clerics or druids or...... it's just very easy to neutralize archers. So why not throw em a bone? They need it.

 

[Quinn]

But archers won't need to suffer as many AAO's as melee fighters will.

They're also at much lower risk for getting poisoned, energy drained, grappled, swallowed, affected by fear auras, flanked and sneak attacked, loosing weapons and armor to monsters that destroy them... I don't think there are nearly enough drawbacks to playing an archer to balance this out.

Fair enough, but I guess in the end, is this all enough to warrant a change in Rapid Shot? Seems like a minor point given all the rest.

 

[Celebrim]

Berk: Given that your statement is a blanket contridiction of my experience, and that I am not noted as a poor tactician in D&D (or anything else for that matter), I'd be interested in you giving some examples.

In my experience it is alot harder to nerf an archer, and alot harder to be nerfed as an archer compared to a melee fighter.

Please give examples of what can be done to counter archers easily with or without spell casters that does not apply to fighters as a whole.

 

[Ondo]

Not only does he ignore the chance of getting two hits, he only figures odds for one attack. Since Rapid Shot subtracts from every attack you make, not just the first, this is a serious shortcoming.

Overall it's a pretty shoddy analysis.

 

[Kugar]

In my experience it is alot harder to nerf an archer, and alot harder to be nerfed as an archer compared to a melee fighter.

Please give examples of what can be done to counter archers easily with or without spell casters that does not apply to fighters as a whole.

Wind Wall

But I agree with Celebrim, it is harder to come up with realistic challenges for archers without 'nerf'ing them. You can use DR, Wall spells, and concelment to do a number on archers but it is hard to make the fighter next to them shine without going after the bow wielder.