Archery Pseudo-Nerf

So I've been thinking a lot about how overpowered archery is in Pathfinder and how to address it without a basic damage nerf. Here's my idea:

We divide archery into two styles: Power and Speed.

Though this system would require a lot of little changes to some feats, class abilities, and weapons, the simplest change is this: Composite bows require standard actions to fire.

So now you have a choice between doing one high damage attack each round or shooting tons of individual arrows with no damage bonus. If we built this system up, feats like Deadly Aim would only function for power archery (composite bows), while stuff like Rapid Shot and Multishot would only work for speed archery (normal bows). Of course, these feats would apply normally to all other ranged weapons; this system is only meant to affect archery.

In this system, I'd also introduce new feats that further boosted the base damage of power archery, maybe even increasing the base damage of a composite longbow to 2d6 around 6th level.

Hopefully the end effect is that Strength-based characters like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc, would naturally prefer power archery, while Dexterity-based characters would stick to normal bows and focus on shooting as many arrows as possible.

That is not a Pseudo-Nerf, it makes Composite Bows nearly completely useless. After a certein level, NOBODY will give up their additional attacks, just for the measly +4 or something damage on their one hit...

I know, archery can be powerful, sometimes seeming overpowered. But that is only if the GM uses no cover and no obstacles and no wind wall and no sight inhibiting conditions like fog and none of the other multiple ways to make an archers life hell.

With your Rules, archery would pretty much suck...

measly +4 or something damage on their one hit

I guess I should have been clearer. My proposed system would introduce ways to significantly boost the one attack per round characters would make with composite bows.

In this system, I'd also introduce new feats that further boosted the base damage of power archery, maybe even increasing the base damage of a composite longbow to 2d6 around 6th level.

To elaborate: Let's say we have two archers around 6th level. Archer A is a fighter with high Strength and archer B is a ranger with high Dexterity.

Archer A would have Deadly Aim and Powerful Archery (a hypothetical new feat that adds a die to composite bow damage per normal iterative attack, requires BAB +6.), so he gets one attack per round that deals 2d8+8 damage (average 17, great against singular bad guys with DR).

Archer B has Rapid Shot and Multishot, so he gets to fire 4 arrows per round, dealing up to 4d8 damage if they all hit (average 18, but they probably won't all hit; however, this is a great style for multiple weak targets without DR).

Does this make more sense?

Powerful Archery seems like Vital Strike, which is already a weak feat that can do what you are proposing.

Archery doesn't need a nerf. It's only balance needed is to enforce cover rules. If there is a hard corner, there is cover. If there is an ally in the way, there is cover. If there is a small wall or table, there is cover.

Never enforce the cover rules as written. They're every bit as bad as running the reach rules as written before Paizo finally re-adopted the 3.5 diagonal reach exception. Center to center LoS works better or center to edge. Also, scale cover the same way as size. Covering 3/4 of a medium target reduces the effective size to small, which is a +1 AC, not +4. Cover blocking less than half of the target should be ignored for any target between tiny and huge.

Rate of fire for a warbow in skilled hands is not once per six seconds. Disallowing rapidshot and manyshot on composite longbows may make sense, but it isn't good for balance in the larger sense. Composite longbow manyshot arrow spam builds are the only martials that in some circumstances compete with casters. Try buffing crossbows and getting rid of the move/attack restriction instead.

Also keep in mind that doing damage is pretty much the only way a ranged combatant contributes to their party. Melee combatants serve as area control, can do combat maneuvers, synergize with one another via flanking, can pressure enemy spellcasters, and make it difficult for enemies to run away. Ranged combatants do tons of damage, but not much else.

If I were to change anything, I'd remove Cluster Shot. Damage reduction should be a downside to a build that excels at making many attacks per round from a safe distance.

Also keep in mind that doing damage is pretty much the only way a ranged combatant contributes to their party. Melee combatants serve as area control, can do combat maneuvers, synergize with one another via flanking, can pressure enemy spellcasters, and make it difficult for enemies to run away. Ranged combatants do tons of damage, but not much else.

If I were to change anything, I'd remove Cluster Shot. Damage reduction should be a downside to a build that excels at making many attacks per round from a safe distance.

I would argue ranged can put more pressure on casters since they can use their arrows to counter spell, only problem is the ridiculous damage debuff that comes with only a standard action.

Personally I make every ranged feat work within the first increment (so things that aren't bows can benefit for stuff like clustered shot) with exception as logic deems necessary, and just enforce the normal cover rules since when its not your turn, you aren't suddenly standing still or unable to react to get behind the cover better.

Hmm, good points, everyone. What this makes me want to do is split archery into two distinct feat chains, with Deadly Aim leading down the power archery track and Rapid Shot leading down the speed archery track.

From there, I'd give power archery access to some combat maneuvers, while I'd push speed archery to focus on spamming arrows or shooting while moving.

The general idea would be to keep power archery close to the current damage output of composite bows (with one attack doing as much damage as the normal iterative number of attacks) with the benefit of easily overcoming DR, while speed archery would be better against multiple targets, crit fishing, and stacking debuffs.

Thanks for the input, everyone!

What would happen with your proposed changes is that certain character classes wouldn't care much, and everyone else would ignore archery.

Let me explain what I mean:
Several classes get the ability to a lot of damage modifiers onto their attacks. As an example, once ranger hit 10th level and get access to instant enemy they can have a +8 to attack and damage on each arrow. With your proposed changes the character would suck until then, and then still be incredibly deadly afterwards.
Conversely, you wont see anyone who doesn't get an ability to add bonus damage to attacks through class abilities. Rogues and Fighters for instance will have no cause to specialize into archery. The rogue gets no bonus damage, and the fighter gets a small amount that scales rather slowly.

And unless you're "power" version is going to get a serious damage upgrade compared to what a single arrow attack can currently do you wont convince anyone to use it. It absolutely sucks. A single full attack from a melee character can often outright kill an CR=level enemy. You would need to have a single ranged attack then that could at least deal 55% of an appropriate enemy's health in 1 hit. Otherwise everyone is just going to completely ignore this style.

If you want to tone down ranged damage, go after them hard. And by that I mean ignore melee characters and go after the spell casters and archers first. Take the hit from the attack of opportunity or use acrobatics to get around. If there are wide open spaces move around melee characters to reach the target. Because when you get near them, they will move. And if they move, they can't full attack. And that will do enough on it's own to reduce their damage output.

When I finally got tired of how broken archery is at high levels, I was simultaneously dealing with a ninja vampire PC who could full attack in melee for 300+ damage most of the time.

I decided the easiest way to fix both things is to simply eliminate full attacks entirely, which is what I have done in every campaign since.

The basics of it are that everyone gets the appropriate Vital Strike feats for free in place of gaining iteratives, and that Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot each let you take two attacks as a standard action (with no Vital Strike).

Since nearly everyone is now getting their full damage output every round, archery is no longer about being able to do consistent damage. Instead, it is about being able to stay out of melee range in exchange for on average lower damage.

Also, crossbows are useful! :)

When I finally got tired of how broken archery is at high levels, I was simultaneously dealing with a ninja vampire PC who could full attack in melee for 300+ damage most of the time.

I decided the easiest way to fix both things is to simply eliminate full attacks entirely, which is what I have done in every campaign since.

The basics of it are that everyone gets the appropriate Vital Strike feats for free in place of gaining iteratives, and that Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot each let you take two attacks as a standard action (with no Vital Strike).

Since nearly everyone is now getting their full damage output every round, archery is no longer about being able to do consistent damage. Instead, it is about being able to stay out of melee range in exchange for on average lower damage.

Also, crossbows are useful! :)

So you nerfed martial characters by taking away full attacks? Not just from archers, but from melee characters too? That sounds absolutely awful.

Congratulations on somehow making the caster martial disparity worse and thinking it somehow improved the game.

*In writing this, I realized it comes off rather rude. I don't want to be too rude, but I do want to convey that I personally find this idea to be a really really really bad idea for game balance.

I've made some heavy-handed changes to casters as well, I just didn't bother mentioning them because they were irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It did occur to me that a response like your was probably the first one I was going to get, though...

I haven't particularly had problems with caster/martial disparity after my tweaks (the most sweeping being completely eliminating 9th-level casters).

Honestly, I've made so many major house rules (I also got rid of all of the "big 6" magic items in favor of level-based enhancement bonuses) that the game I play is barely Pathfinder any more. :)

Just removing Clustered Shots should balance archery pretty well. The ease of full-attacking is compensated for the ridiculously high feat investment required to be competent and the inability to do anything other than deal damage.

I've made some heavy-handed changes to casters as well, I just didn't bother mentioning them because they were irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It did occur to me that a response like your was probably the first one I was going to get, though...

I haven't particularly had problems with caster/martial disparity after my tweaks (the most sweeping being completely eliminating 9th-level casters).

Honestly, I've made so many major house rules (I also got rid of all of the "big 6" magic items in favor of level-based enhancement bonuses) that the game I play is barely Pathfinder any more. :)

Well, this sort of information is important when you're making suggestions to other posters since they probably wont have implemented your additional changes which will help keep the balance.

If you've removed all 9th level casting classes, then the imbalance of removing full attacks is somewhat countered by that. Though now 6th level casters still reign supreme.