Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 725862" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 725862, member: 4937"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification