Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting

[kreynolds]

But we're talking about comparing two sets of Feats from the PHB, NOT Prestige Classes.

You can't fairly compare those two feats together. They have completely different combat focuses, they use completely different feat advancement ladders, their power balances out because of varying weapons, classes, situations. It's like comparing marshmallows to cow dung.

Besides, chill out a bit there bucko. He asked for an opinion and I gave mine. Got a problem with that?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting

I disagree that it's "too strong". Stronger at low levels, sure, but not overly so. The extra shot at your highest BAB is appealing, but the Archery Feat chains don't provide as many options as the Melee Feat chains.

There are quite a few Feats that can enhance a melee fighter's damage and versatility that don't apply to ranged weapons (such as Power Attack or Expertise), allow him to destroy an opponent's equipment (Sunder) make even more additional attacks (Cleave, Whirlwind) and so on.

The Archer can enhance range, fire into melee, gain a bonus to hit when close to the target, and fire while moving. All are good abilities, but the archer is quickly passed up by the melee fighter in terms of number of attacks and combat options.

I wouldn't make too much of (Great) Cleave or Whirlwind Attack. They sound really nice, but in practice, they're only useful against opponents whom you have a good chance of taking down in one hit. At high levels, you probably won't be fighting many of these. Power Attack is actually counterproductive if you're already doing tons of damage, since the reduction in hit probability more than cancels out the extra damage. Finally, I've never seen any PC take Sunder -- too much chance of destroying a nifty item by mistake. (It would be a great feat for an NPC villain, by contrast.)

By contrast, the archer gets to benefit from strength bows, Point-Blank Shot, and doubled enhancement bonuses (bow and arrows). An archer who's isolated is probably in more trouble than a tank in the same situation, though. Thus an archer firing from behind a tank gives you the best of both worlds.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Re: Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting

Thus an archer firing from behind a tank gives you the best of both worlds.

Except the +4 cover bonus to AC, of course.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting

Finally, I've never seen any PC take Sunder -- too much chance of destroying a nifty item by mistake. (It would be a great feat for an NPC villain, by contrast.)

Sunder is a great feat when you fight a lot of weapon using foes -- especially if you are a fighter whose sword advances in power like the Samurai from OA.
I have a strength fighter with a two-handed sword that fights a lot of guys that use great axes. Great axe (hardness 5/10 hit points). Without out power attack I do 2d6 + 8 (+2 sword) points of damage, so even an average damage will destroy a non-magic great axe.
What sunder does is to reduce the damage you take from mooks. To hit bonuses increase much more rapidly than AC, so it is necessary as a fighter to figure out how to reduce the damage you take. Improved disarm is for fighting real villains.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting

Sunder is a great feat when you fight a lot of weapon using foes -- especially if you are a fighter whose sword advances in power like the Samurai from OA. I have a strength fighter with a two-handed sword that fights a lot of guys that use great axes. Great axe (hardness 5/10 hit points). Without out power attack I do 2d6 + 8 (+2 sword) points of damage, so even an average damage will destroy a non-magic great axe.

Nothing wrong with that; it's a fine tactic. Until you accidentally sunder that +2 greataxe of speed that was meant for the barbarian.

 

[hong]

Except the +4 cover bonus to AC, of course.

Except for that, of course.

IME, it hasn't really been a major factor. Unless you're fighting in really confined spaces, the archer can usually move to a position where the tank isn't blockin his shots. The bad guys will usually be discouraged from moving to attack him due to the threat of AoOs.

 

[Christian]

It seems that the two feats, two weapon fighting and rapid shot, are supposed to be comparable. I am of the opinion that quick shot is much better. To get two weapon fighting one must take ambidextrious, a very limited feat. To qualify for rapid shot one must take point blank shot, a very useful feat. The additional attack aquired using two weapon fighting is limited in regards to the type of weapon you can use and the strength bonus you can apply. The additional attack aquired using rapid shot is exactly like your first attack.

(1) Rapid Shot alone can only be used with projectile weapons with no reload time, i.e. bows. Oh, yeah, and whips.

(2) You won't have your full strength bonus on any of the attacks unless you shell out for a mighty composite bow. OK, you'll probably do that if you have a high Strength, but that highlights another difference between melee and ranged combat. Your Strength score affects both attack and damage with melee weapons, but you need Dex to affect your ranged attack roll. All things being equal, a ranged fighter will be naturally less effective than a melee fighter, because he needs two good stats instead of one to be offensively effective.

(3) Rapid Shot can be used with thrown weapons-if you have the Quickdraw feat. This is the equivalent of the Ambidexterity requirement for TWF-a moderately useless feat that increases the effectiveness of the 'good' feat. (Note that you don't need Ambi to get TWF-it's not a prereq-but you'll have a -4 on the secondary attack. A secondary attack with a -4 is still better than no secondary attack at all, methinks!)

And finally, (4) it's not irrelevant that RS is the end of its feat chain. In general, feats that are prereqs for other good feats are weaker than feats that aren't. Part of the strength of TWF is that having it lets you get GTWF a few levels down the road. Decisions, decisions ...

IME, the RS feat really doesn't unbalance combat in favor of the archer. It may make up some of the difference ... It's certainly a better feat for improving the archer's effectiveness than TWF is for improving the melee fighter's effectiveness, but that's not necessarily a problem. It does suggest, however, that substituting PBS and RS for the Ambi/TWF virtual feats is not a good way to 'fix' the Ranger, if you think the Ranger needs fixing. IMHO, of course.

 

[kreynolds]

Yep. I gotta go with Christian here. Honestly, I'm wondering if Slack'alot had a player in his/her game that wanted to use the feat, Slack'alot said "No." and now the player is ticked off because his DM had no logical reasoning behind the decision. No hard feelings, Slack. It just feels that way too me. I could be wrong though.

 

[hong]

Yep. I gotta go with Christian here. Honestly, I'm wondering if Slack'alot had a player in his/her game that wanted to use the feat, Slack'alot said "No." and now the player is ticked off because his DM had no logical reasoning behind the decision. No hard feelings, Slack. It just feels that way too me. I could be wrong though.

Or it could be that Slack'alot is playing a PC with Ambidex/TWF, and is finding that his thunder is being stolen by the fighter with PBS and Rapid Shot. I've seen this happen too.

 

[kreynolds]

I hear ya' hong! I got popped in the face by a fellow adventurer with those feats! Ouch....