Rapid Shot analysis by Sean Reynolds

[Rackhir]

What does one have to do with the other? Archers don't get to use shields, just like anyone else who decides to use a two handed weapon.

Well what they have to do with each other is that they are the same type of benefit from opposite sides of the equation. One attack, one defense. If you kill off the attack bonus, you should drop the coresponding defensive bonus.

The only people who benefit from shield and armor stacking are those willing to sacrifice large amounts of damage for extra protection... Which is how it should be.

Yeah, of course NOBODY benefits from shield and armor stacking. Just fighters, clerics, rangers, paladins, druids, bards and sometimes even rogues, mages and sorcerers. In short, pretty much everyone can benefit from shield and armor stacking. The only people who don't benefit from it are those who have CHOSEN not to, Probably, because they want to maximize damage per hit (ie. barbarians). Given that many of the classes are not melee damage monsters (clerics, druids, bards, etc..) they have every incentive to draw on the benefits a shield provides.

in contrast, by the time you are hitting the levels where GMW is really effective (roughly 6+), pretty much only archers are going to be benefiting from the bow and arrow stacking. At those levels, mages, clerics, druids, rogues and non-archer fighter types generally have much more effective and efficient things to be doing in combat than using a weapon they aren't really very good with.

 

[mmu1]

Well what they have to do with each other is that they are the same type of benefit from opposite sides of the equation. One attack, one defense. If you kill off the attack bonus, you should drop the coresponding defensive bonus.

Nonsense. That argument might be sound if everyone except archers benefited from the stacking of armor, shields, and Magic Vestment spells, and archers needed the to hit and damage stacking to stay competitive... Which reminds me, archers get to stack two bonuses, compared to armor and shield users' one.

By your logic, everyone who doesn't use a shield deserves the chance to have their weapon enhancement bonus doubled up, to make things up to them.

Like I said, one way or another, you're choosing a highly powerful two handed weapon (and it doesn't matter whether the added power lies in doing a massive amount of damage in the thick of melee or a smaller amount from a safe distance), and you pay the price. If you want both a shield and the ability to fight while hiding behind the cleric, then take QuickDraw and throw javelins.

 

[Morpheus]

Sean's analysis actually favors rapid shot because it does not factor in the probability of hitting with both shots.
Kugar

Sean calculated the percentages correctly and, in fact, does take hitting with both shots into account. Here's an example:


BAB Odds/Each Hit Odds/Any Hit Difference
-3/-3 35% 58% +8%


To calculate the chance of each hitting you simply multipy your chances of hitting (7 out of 20) times 5% and arrive at 35% for any one, single hit. So far, so good.

To calculate the chance of any hit you must calculate the following situations:
First Hit/ Second Miss = (35%)*(65%) = 22.75%
First Miss/ Second Miss = (65%) * (35%) = 22.75%
First Hit/ Second Hit = (35%) * (35%) = 12.25%

Add together and you get 57.75% which rounds to 58%. Or the easy way is 100% - [the chance of both attacks missing (65%) times (65%%)= 42.75%] = 57.75%. Either way, Sean learned his Statistics 101 well...As for Rapid Shot being too powerful at -2; for me, it's a game and if this gives a slight advantage to the PCs, no big deal. Making sure they can do the math to calculate their AC and to hit bonuses, that's another story... (But then again, I am a math teacher)

 

[Spatula]

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

Archers, too, since they are perfectly able to use bucklers.

Also note that in most melee/archer comparisons, the melee is using a two-handed weapon and *still* falling short on average damage. If the melee fighter is using a shield, then his damage drops off even further.

 

[Mole]

I hope I am being too cynical, but could this flawed analysis be a justifcation for a forthcoming 3.5E nerf ?

Sean has picked a ridiculously low AC (even Level 1 characters face opponents with better AC than that), disregarded iterative attacks and criticals.

The bottom line number for these comparison should be net average damage inflicted across a realistic range of ACs.

I will try to find my old spreadsheets...

 

[Morpheus]

Sean has picked a ridiculously low AC (even Level 1 characters face opponents with better AC than that), disregarded iterative attacks and criticals.

Let's take a look...

Using AC 15 and -2 for each shot, we got:

Chance of any, one Single Hit: 20%
Chance of Both Hits 4%
Chance of Both Missing: 64%
Chance of Hitting at least Once: 36%

AC 17 and -2 for each shot:

Chance of any, one Single Hit: 10%
Chance of Both Hits 1%
Chance of Both Missing: 81%
Chance of Hitting at least Once: 19%

This is what Sean was arguing about (again, it matters not to me). Using different numbers does not change the fact that the additional shot increases the probability of hitting, at least once, significantly.

 

[Mole]

Let's take a look...

Using AC 15 and -2 for each shot, we got:

Chance of any, one Single Hit: 20%
Chance of Both Hits 4%
Chance of Both Missing: 64%
Chance of Hitting at least Once: 36%

AC 17 and -2 for each shot:

Chance of any, one Single Hit: 10%
Chance of Both Hits 1%
Chance of Both Missing: 81%
Chance of Hitting at least Once: 19%

This is what Sean was arguing about (again, it matters not to me). Using different numbers does not change the fact that the additional shot increases the probability of hitting, at least once, significantly.

The idea is to inflict damage. If your average damage per arrow is "D"

Vs AC17
chance for each arrow to hit is 10% so your average damage is .1*D +.1*D=.2D

Without rapidshot chance to hit is 20% so av damage is .2*D

I.,e. you will do the same average damage.

Vs AC18
chance for each arrow to hit is 5% so your average damage is ..5*D +.05*D=.1*D

Without rapidshot chance to hit is 15% so av damage is .15*D

So you will do more average damage with a single arrow than with rapidshot.


Admittedly it is a narrow window where you are better off not multishotting, but his analysis avoids that window entirely - skewing the result.
With iterative attacks the -2 penalty begins to have an effect.

Also criticals are a factor because the -2 penalty will affect chance to threaten (if you have imp crit and keen arrows) and your chance to convert - very significant if you have an X3 mult on a burst weapon, a failed conversion is effectively two arrows lost.

Factoring in how often you get a full round attack vs a standard attack also skews things, especially with a BAB < 6.

As I said his analysis is so simplistic as to be meaningless for normal game play. So why bother unless he is trying to proove a point ?

 

[Quinn]

This is what Sean was arguing about (again, it matters not to me). Using different numbers does not change the fact that the additional shot increases the probability of hitting, at least once, significantly.

But of course it increases the chance of hitting! It has to! If you have two attacks, and add a third attack, you will always increase your chance of hitting. If a feat gives you no extra advantage, then what is the point of the feat? This is what the feat is designed to do.

That said, nothing has shown that Rapid Shot unbalances the game. According to Sean's analysis, the feat gives the archer its most substantial benefits for 6 levels or so. After that, the amount of the increase tapers off. I think a lot of assumptions have been taken as truisms. Archers are NOT always going to get off a full round attack. Archers are NOT always going to be able to stand 120+ feet away and fire off arrows like a gatling gun. Concentration solely upon Archery Feats will weaken the Archer is other ways, either in Melee Combat, AC boosting feats, or Save boosting feats.

Archers can become unbalanced. I've seen it myself, and I've read it on the boards. But in each case, it's with the inclusion of one or two Prestige Classes, or feats from other sources. Never is it because of Rapid Shot alone.

Nerf the stacking of magical bows and arrows and everyone's Order of the Bow Initiate, Deepwood Sniper and Peerless Archer before making changes to Rapid Shot.

 

[Kannik]

Another quick addition...

One must also look at the whole PBS/RS combo in addition or in relation to the feats that they take up. Taking off a bit from an earlier study I did with TWF/Amb:

First off. Chances to hit with 0/1/2 hits when rolling an RS:

[color=white]
Needed       Hit 0    Hit 1   Hit 2
 to hit:
    
    11            25%   50%   25%
    15            49%   42%     9%
    17            72%   26%      2%
[/color]

Note that this works for dual shortsword with Amb/TWF as well.

Now, taking those percentages, we can do some comparisions. Fighter A is the archer, Fighter B is the big guy with greatsword, fighter C is the crazy one with dual short swords. Lets give Fighter A a comp long bow of +2 strength. A has 18 dex, B and C have 18 str

Looking at A and C

Average damage for A: (4.5+2 = 6.5 per shot that hits)

(.25*0+.5*6.5+.25*6.5*2) = 6.5 @ 11
3.9 @ 15
1.95 @ 17

For C, we have: (3.5+(4*1.5/2)=6.5) ~ same damage, same averages =
6.5 @ 11
3.9 @ 15
1.95 @ 17

Now, Guy B has 2 feats to play with! So, they get Weapon Focus and Power Attack. Using these, they wade into battle, taking off 3 points from their attack in order to make them at -2 to hit, just like A and C.

Average Damage for B: (3.5*2+6+3 = 16 per hit).

50% chance to hit @ 11+ = 8 points
30% @ 15 = 4.8 points
20% @ 17 = 3.2 points.

AAAAND B didn't spend 300 GP on his comp long bow of +2 str, he spent it on a MW sword. So he can take off 4 to his to hit and remain at the same effective -2 to hit.

8.5 @ 11
5.5 @ 15
3.4 @ 17

Above the 17+ level to hit, hit chances start to get very low at the -2 penalty.

So, taking it all into consideration, including the amount of feats spent, etc, one can see that the 2handed guy deals a great much more damage on average.

If we add in point-blank shot for the archer that does help but it won't fully redress the balance and at 30' or less, the archer will likely be charged, surrounded, or something similar so they won't be able to fire for too long.

This doesn't take into consideration critical hits, which I don't think will swing the balance to the archer -- they may have 3x vs 2x, and the 20 vs 19-20 is 'helped' by the fact they are getting double the rolls, but with strength doubled on the greatsword, that's an extra 6 points you'd have to roll on that extra die in order to make up for it.

Of course, B will have to wait until 3rd level to make full use of their Power Attack, since you can't remove more than your BAB.

Whether archers are overbalanced, I'm not so convinced. They do get nifty things, but looking at the whole picture, from where I stand right now, at least from a base point of view (not counting magic), they aren't overpowering the greatsword wielder. (is the greatsword too powerful instead? another timeless debate... )

Again, sorry for the quick reply,

Kannik

 

[Rackhir]

Nonsense. That argument might be sound if everyone except archers benefited from the stacking of armor, shields, and Magic Vestment spells, and archers needed the to hit and damage stacking to stay competitive... Which reminds me, archers get to stack two bonuses, compared to armor and shield users' one.

By your logic, everyone who doesn't use a shield deserves the chance to have their weapon enhancement bonus doubled up, to make things up to them.

From the SRD

Magic armor bonuses are referred to as enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses).

Excuse me? But what are you talking about? As the SRD says right above, Shield and Armor enhancement bonuses DO stack. If you have a +5 Shield and +5 Armor, you get an armor class of 10 (base)+ 10 (enhancement +5/+5) + 2 (Large Shield Bonus) + 8 (Plate Armor bonus) + 1 (dex).

You are correct in that archers can concievably benefit from the shield and armor stacking. However, so can any of the other classes benefit from arrow and bow stacking. It's just that neither are likely to do so. Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I have yet to see any archer characters who actually use any sort of shield or even a buckler. It's simply not effective for them to do so. So I don't understand your complaint.

Characters that use a two handed weapon are making a choice, not to use a shield. Just like an archer can't use a shield. Bringing up bucklers is simply a red herring and just as posible for 2HW users as well.

You are distorting my point when you say that

"By your logic, everyone who doesn't use a shield deserves the chance to have their weapon enhancement bonus doubled up, to make things up to them."

That has nothing to do with my point. The stacking benefit applies on both sides, bows and arrows vs Shields and Armor. Not to mention that arguably the shield and armor benefit is more "unbalanced" since it benefits a much wider range of characters. Your complaint is somewhat akin to arguing that a mount's armor and your shield should stack.

Melee combatants have numerous feats and methods for increasing damage, to hit bonuses and gaining extra attacks that are not in any way shape or form available to archers (I know there is the Peerless Archer's PS, but any DM who permits that class is probably insane in my view). So the fact that they are missing out on a couple of potential + to hit and damage is hardly crippling in my opinion.