Rapid Shot analysis by Sean Reynolds
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
LazarusLong42
First Post
[mode="devil's advocate"]
OK, I'm going to throw out a counter-argument, because it's obvious to me that *melee* fighters are overpowered.
Let's compare an elven archer (Dex 20, Str 16) to a Half-Orc melee fighter (Str 20, Dex 16). Both at first level, and with no magical weapons yet.
The archer, with a mighty +3 longbow (400 gp), hits for an average damage of 7.5 per hit (d8 = 4.5 + 3), or 3.75 per round (50% hit rate). By taking PBS and RS, he can increase this by about 50-60% (midrange AC), to about 6 hp per round.
The melee fighter, wielding a plain greatsword (50 gp) with both hands, hits for an average damage of 14 per hit (2d6 = 7 + 5 + 2), or about 7 hp per round (50% hit rate).
Which is still 15% more than the archer.
So... the melee fighter has saved 350 gp, and--oh yeah--hasn't taken any feats yet. While we're at it, let's spend 300 of that gp on a MW greatsword, so he hits 5% more often.
[/mode="devil's advocate"]
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, ladies and gentlemen. We can twist this every which way and back, and find ways to make each situation statistically better.
Personally, I think the problem isn't Rapid Shot--it's that TWF/Ambidexterity doesn't give you *nearly* the same damage as either an archer with RS *or* a two-handed melee fighter with a greatsword/greataxe.
LL
OK, I'm going to throw out a counter-argument, because it's obvious to me that *melee* fighters are overpowered.
Let's compare an elven archer (Dex 20, Str 16) to a Half-Orc melee fighter (Str 20, Dex 16). Both at first level, and with no magical weapons yet.
The archer, with a mighty +3 longbow (400 gp), hits for an average damage of 7.5 per hit (d8 = 4.5 + 3), or 3.75 per round (50% hit rate). By taking PBS and RS, he can increase this by about 50-60% (midrange AC), to about 6 hp per round.
The melee fighter, wielding a plain greatsword (50 gp) with both hands, hits for an average damage of 14 per hit (2d6 = 7 + 5 + 2), or about 7 hp per round (50% hit rate).
Which is still 15% more than the archer.
So... the melee fighter has saved 350 gp, and--oh yeah--hasn't taken any feats yet. While we're at it, let's spend 300 of that gp on a MW greatsword, so he hits 5% more often.
[/mode="devil's advocate"]
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, ladies and gentlemen. We can twist this every which way and back, and find ways to make each situation statistically better.
Personally, I think the problem isn't Rapid Shot--it's that TWF/Ambidexterity doesn't give you *nearly* the same damage as either an archer with RS *or* a two-handed melee fighter with a greatsword/greataxe.
LL
Kannik
Legend
LazarusLong42 said:
I really shouldn't jump in just to post these one-linerish comments, but what can one do when one is at work... }
Whether or not Rapid Shot is unbalanced (and playing an archer right now and a melee fighter right now, (two different campaigns) I'm finding this discussion really intersting), I will agree that Amb/TWF may be what needs some tweaking (having played a double-weapon char in a prev campaign) as, not even looking at archers, it never seems to stack up. While in RL we can argue some methods are more advantageous than others, in-game they should relatively be equivalent or offer proper trade offs to that over time average (situation, etc) they are equivalent. (our fix was to make a TWF attack usable as a standard action)
Now whether one can fire X number of times in 6 seconds vs someone swinging Y number of times in 6 seconds... that's more I'd like to look into. Here's a quote I found: A trained archer could shoot 12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. The arrow could wound at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armor at 60 yards. 24 per minute = 4 per round. this page says: For a skilled archer it was possible to fire around twelve well aimed arrows a minute, and up to fifteen with some reduction in accuracy.. 15/min = 2.5 per round. so we have maybe 2-3 arrows per round 'realistically'. How many 'effective' attacks could one get with a sword in 6 seconds? Could someone get about 1 per second? Having some martial training with a fast-striking sword (Dao) I'd say you can get plently of strikes out quickly, but whether those are effective strikes is another matter...
Sorry for the scatter shot response, better response later,
Kannik
Eldorian
First Post
I have to agree that archers are overpowered, mainly due to the supperior feats in the archery chain and the stacking of enhancment bonus on both bows and arrows. As for the supposed archery weaknesses... You're kiding right?
Grappling. Most archers have full BAB, and that is the primary contributer of grapple checks. Also, most melee fighters don't use light weapons, because in melee a 2handed weapon is superior. If you want to grapple effectively, jump a caster.
Sunder/disarm/grapple You do realize that these require you to be melee with the archer? And that the archer's goal is not to be in melee? So OF COURSE he's weak in melee, he's a ranged fighter! As far as dealing with cover and concealment, these are problems with melee fighters as well, more so in cover, because most instances of cover also involve difficulty in getting to the opponent with a melee weapon, and thus the ability to get an attack at all. (top of walls, behind big things that get in the way.) and the archer can do the same things the melee fighter does to avoid cover.
As far as power attack being the balancing factor, a while back I did an analysis of power attacking if you recive 2 or more attacks a round, and it turned out that the damage was superior only if you needed something like a 5 to hit, and then only 1 or 2 points was optimal. Face it, the only reason to play melee is that it's useful to have big guys in the front soaking up other meleers. Oh, and getting a melee character on a spell caster is somewhat superior than an archer, although not much, because most casters can successfully cast defensively.
Cleave is only good for mook opponents.. It should not be considered in relation to rapid shot, which is always useful (except that one row of bonus to hit seen the the various well done analysis, not Sean's.)
As for comparing two weapon fighting and ambidexterity to rapid shot, well, the thread has got it about right, archers get full attacks way more often than melee. In fact, for melee characters, two handed weapons are far superior in most melee situations. First off, a greatsword does about the same damage as 2 short swords, assuming you get the same number of off hand attacks as primary. Secondly, in instances when you only get one attack the round, such as a charge round, or a manouver round, you get way more damage with the greatsword. 2 handed weapons are also superior for cleave and whirwind, the melee feats of mass destruction. It's obvious for whirlwind, but for cleave, the extra attack you get with the cleave will do more damage, hence a higher chance of getting another kill, hence another chance for a cleave, assuming great cleave. The only reason to go with two weapons is for sneak attack, and style.
I should make mention of double weapons. Double weapons are much better than 2 weapons, because in the rounds where you attack only with the primary head of the weapon, you get the 2handed weapon benifits of 1.5 str bonus. Double weapons are kinda like a combo of two weapons and two handed weapons, falling a little short of 2 handed weapons for single attack rounds, and cleave, whirlwind, and whatnot. They also cost an additional feat. They are better on most accounts than two weapons due to superior damage (two weapons are better during grapples, because at least one is light, also for getting swallowed, having a weapon sundered). Two handed weapons and double weapons are also better for any spell casters, as they can easily let go of the weapon with one hand in order to cast the spell, and grip it with 2 again after casting.
Now back to rapid shot. The reasons archers have it better have been covered by this thread pretty well. I also threw in my arguement that two handers have it better than dual wielders. So the melee equivalent of rapid shot is weaker than a melee configuration requiring far less feats. (ambi, two weapon, improved two weapon, advanced, greater, epic, whatever they call it).
Oh, one more arguement for two weapons besides sneak attacks, they do allow, somewhat, double stacking of enhancement bonuses, at least to damage, they get the shaft for to hit.
Oh, the shield armor stacking thing. Is it just my game or does everyone notice that attack bonus and armor bonus scale entirely differently, unless you double up the armor bonus with shield. Leading to the phrase, "You can't be a tank without a plank."
A cloak of displacement has proven to be better tho (my barbarian loves his, and the fighter has cloak envy.)
Eldorian Antar
Grappling. Most archers have full BAB, and that is the primary contributer of grapple checks. Also, most melee fighters don't use light weapons, because in melee a 2handed weapon is superior. If you want to grapple effectively, jump a caster.
Sunder/disarm/grapple You do realize that these require you to be melee with the archer? And that the archer's goal is not to be in melee? So OF COURSE he's weak in melee, he's a ranged fighter! As far as dealing with cover and concealment, these are problems with melee fighters as well, more so in cover, because most instances of cover also involve difficulty in getting to the opponent with a melee weapon, and thus the ability to get an attack at all. (top of walls, behind big things that get in the way.) and the archer can do the same things the melee fighter does to avoid cover.
As far as power attack being the balancing factor, a while back I did an analysis of power attacking if you recive 2 or more attacks a round, and it turned out that the damage was superior only if you needed something like a 5 to hit, and then only 1 or 2 points was optimal. Face it, the only reason to play melee is that it's useful to have big guys in the front soaking up other meleers. Oh, and getting a melee character on a spell caster is somewhat superior than an archer, although not much, because most casters can successfully cast defensively.
Cleave is only good for mook opponents.. It should not be considered in relation to rapid shot, which is always useful (except that one row of bonus to hit seen the the various well done analysis, not Sean's.)
As for comparing two weapon fighting and ambidexterity to rapid shot, well, the thread has got it about right, archers get full attacks way more often than melee. In fact, for melee characters, two handed weapons are far superior in most melee situations. First off, a greatsword does about the same damage as 2 short swords, assuming you get the same number of off hand attacks as primary. Secondly, in instances when you only get one attack the round, such as a charge round, or a manouver round, you get way more damage with the greatsword. 2 handed weapons are also superior for cleave and whirwind, the melee feats of mass destruction. It's obvious for whirlwind, but for cleave, the extra attack you get with the cleave will do more damage, hence a higher chance of getting another kill, hence another chance for a cleave, assuming great cleave. The only reason to go with two weapons is for sneak attack, and style.
I should make mention of double weapons. Double weapons are much better than 2 weapons, because in the rounds where you attack only with the primary head of the weapon, you get the 2handed weapon benifits of 1.5 str bonus. Double weapons are kinda like a combo of two weapons and two handed weapons, falling a little short of 2 handed weapons for single attack rounds, and cleave, whirlwind, and whatnot. They also cost an additional feat. They are better on most accounts than two weapons due to superior damage (two weapons are better during grapples, because at least one is light, also for getting swallowed, having a weapon sundered). Two handed weapons and double weapons are also better for any spell casters, as they can easily let go of the weapon with one hand in order to cast the spell, and grip it with 2 again after casting.
Now back to rapid shot. The reasons archers have it better have been covered by this thread pretty well. I also threw in my arguement that two handers have it better than dual wielders. So the melee equivalent of rapid shot is weaker than a melee configuration requiring far less feats. (ambi, two weapon, improved two weapon, advanced, greater, epic, whatever they call it).
Oh, one more arguement for two weapons besides sneak attacks, they do allow, somewhat, double stacking of enhancement bonuses, at least to damage, they get the shaft for to hit.
Oh, the shield armor stacking thing. Is it just my game or does everyone notice that attack bonus and armor bonus scale entirely differently, unless you double up the armor bonus with shield. Leading to the phrase, "You can't be a tank without a plank."
A cloak of displacement has proven to be better tho (my barbarian loves his, and the fighter has cloak envy.)
Eldorian Antar
Last edited:
Eldorian said:
True, grapple is even better against a caster. But since Strength is not likely to be the archer's strong point (unless it's boosted via magic), it's still an effective tactic for an enemy with a good Strength.
Eldorian said:
Regarding cover from objects, melee fighters tend to have more maneuverability around such obstacles. If the opponent is using a tree or short wall for cover, the fighter can maneuver around it to negate the cover.
As for the archer standing back and firing arrows, this is matter of DM tactics. If the DM does not provide challenges for that archer, then the encounter itself is going to be far easier (and would probably lower the XPs given out). There are plenty of monsters that can traverse the distance to an archer when battle begins. Spells can force the archer to move (various wall spells) or engage in melee combat (summon spells, etc.)
Eldorian said:
I disagree. Melee fighters can do lots of damage per round, and I see cleave come into play even when dealing with some more powerful opponents. Again, it too could be a problem if the DM does not use some more clever tactics for the PC's opponents.
Ysgarran
Registered User
It seems that you can't compare rapid shot to weapon focus. They are two different feats and the old saw has always been that all feats are not created equal. A fairer comparison would be to compare two-weapon fighting/ambidexteriy to point blank/rapid shot comparison. Even then there is the precise shot requirement that bowmen MUST have to be effective.
Smart opponents will place themselves so that cover has effect, that means placing the archers allies between themselves and the archer.
This is getting into a kind of meta argument but archers can't always avoid hand to hand combat. Often a bowmen will have to drop their bow and wade into combat because the tanks have taken such a beating someone else besides the wizard or the rogue have to get into the front line. And when that bowmen does get into the front line he is at a serious disadvantage.
Ysgarran.
Smart opponents will place themselves so that cover has effect, that means placing the archers allies between themselves and the archer.
This is getting into a kind of meta argument but archers can't always avoid hand to hand combat. Often a bowmen will have to drop their bow and wade into combat because the tanks have taken such a beating someone else besides the wizard or the rogue have to get into the front line. And when that bowmen does get into the front line he is at a serious disadvantage.
Ysgarran.
mmu1 said:
Berk said:
Great cleave comes into effect usually with lesser opponents, though the past couple of times, it has been used to finish off some battles that have been going for awhile and the major opponents were all around 20 hit points or less. Sometimes all it takes is for the fighter to maneuver to the right spot where he can attack numerous opponents. In a dungeon environment, this could happen quite often. But as you said, Cleave is used more often than not. Perhaps this will change in the future.
