|
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.
You mean like the feat tax for two weapon fighters where they have to take three feats to get the basic benefits of weilding two weapons or they deal with a -6/-6 to hit?
It's a weapon style, you can go without it and its harder but calling it a feat tax isn't really appropriate because it is possible to go without it, honestly point blank shot is more of a feat tax to me because it's a pre-req for every other archery feat in the game and so to have any building skill with a bow/ranged weapon, you have to have it.
|
|
I actually like that explanation a lot! PHB pg. 140 actually reads "...you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend."
Precise shot gets rid of the -4 and the risk of hitting allies.
Thanks, my group really likes that houserule a lot, and even with it, they rarely fire without taking the -4 because they just don't think it's worth the risk.
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.You mean like the feat tax for two weapon fighters where they have to take three feats to get the basic benefits of weilding two weapons or they deal with a -6/-6 to hit?
It's a weapon style, you can go without it and its harder but calling it a feat tax isn't really appropriate because it is possible to go without it, honestly point blank shot is more of a feat tax to me because it's a pre-req for every other archery feat in the game and so to have any building skill with a bow/ranged weapon, you have to have it.
Ahh, but with two-weapon fighting, you gain another whole attack, at your best attack bonus, eventually. Worth 3 feats? Maybe. Add one more feat and you've gained two attacks. Two attacks for four feats? Now that definitely sounds worth it.
With ranged combat, you get the same number of attacks as everyone else, but you have to burn a fet to be equally likely to hit your target.
|
|
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.You mean like the feat tax for two weapon fighters where they have to take three feats to get the basic benefits of weilding two weapons or they deal with a -6/-6 to hit?
It's a weapon style, you can go without it and its harder but calling it a feat tax isn't really appropriate because it is possible to go without it, honestly point blank shot is more of a feat tax to me because it's a pre-req for every other archery feat in the game and so to have any building skill with a bow/ranged weapon, you have to have it.
Ahh, but with two-weapon fighting, you gain another whole attack, at your best attack bonus, eventually. Worth 3 feats? Maybe. Add one more feat and you've gained two attacks. Two attacks for four feats? Now that definitely sounds worth it.
With ranged combat, you get the same number of attacks as everyone else, but you have to burn a fet to be equally likely to hit your target.
Actually you don't gain crap with the first feat, you already can have the second attack just by picking up a second weapon it just lowers the penalties from -6/-6 to -2/-2 which is why its the same because with ranged combat you get the advantage of hitting your enemy from 95 feet away with no fear of retaliation or at least a lessened fear of retaliation. For imp two weapon fighting you have the equivalent with ranged called many shot or rapid shot, etc. So how come it's good for the one style but unfair for the other when both have their own advantages.
Actually you don't gain crap with the first feat, you already can have the second attack just by picking up a second weapon it just lowers the penalties from -6/-6 to -2/-2 which is why its the same because with ranged combat you get the advantage of hitting your enemy from 95 feet away with no fear of retaliation or at least a lessened fear of retaliation. For imp two weapon fighting you have the equivalent with ranged called many shot or rapid shot, etc. So how come it's good for the one style but unfair for the other when both have their own advantages.
Well, then, to put it more clearly:
If you pick up a second weapon, you already have two attacks, just like you said, but you're severely penalized on your attack rolls with both of them. You then take feats to overcome those penalties, eventually ending up with a bonus attack.
If you pick up a bow, you do not already have two attacks. What you have is one attack that, situationally, penalizes you on your attack rolls when firing into melee. Sure, it's great for exchanging arrow fire with enemies who stay at range. But it's penalized for using it in typical dungeon encounters to help your fighters kill their melee foes.
In the first case, the dual-wielder can simply put down the second weapon, or better, hold it in his hand without trying to use it, and all his penalties evaporate. He makes one attack with his favorite weapon in his primary hand with no attack penalties.
In the second case, the archer cannot simply put down his bow to make one attack with his favorite weapon since he now has no weapons with which to attack. Sure, he can draw a sword and charge into melee, but I've been discussing characters built around the concept of being ranged specialists, which means their ability scores, class features, feat selection, and magic item preferences all lean toward using that bow (et. al.) and drawing a sword means forgoing all those selections, which is another big penalty. So firing into melee, or charging into melee, he's penalized either way.
In case that's still unclear, here's another way to look at it:
The dual-wielder starts off penalized but is compensated by getting an extra attack. He can kill things faster, which is very important in a resource-management situation (which all of D&D is).
The ranged specialist starts off penalized but is NOT compensated for it. He cannot kill things any faster.
Someone has said that being able to hang out in the back and spend no money on armor is the compensation for the Precise Shot tax. Maybe. But I have seen very few DMs run entire campaigns without sending some, or many, of the encounters after the guys in the back. They sneak up from behind, or drop down, burrow up, teleport in, or simply run past the AoO and hit the soft targets in back. Or if not, they come with their own ranged weapons and pick off the guys in the back.
So in my experience, hanging out in the back is a benefit some of the time, but foregoing reasonable invenstments in your armor/defenses is ultimately suicide.
Consider this. Mages hang out in the back and wear no armor, but the game treats their armor restrictions as exactly that. Restrictions. Somehow, to be a mage, you're restricted by wearing no armor, not benefitted. I think the same assessment would apply to an unarmored archer in the back.
|
Actually you don't gain crap with the first feat, you already can have the second attack just by picking up a second weapon it just lowers the penalties from -6/-6 to -2/-2 which is why its the same because with ranged combat you get the advantage of hitting your enemy from 95 feet away with no fear of retaliation or at least a lessened fear of retaliation.
How often are DMs willing to run fights where the distance between the PCs and their opponents is (and stays) 95 feet ?
If ranged attackers were that great, every fighter-type would be playing one. But the truth is that most players who want to dish out damage go the melee way because it is far more efficient.
The only way for a ranged attacker to be fully efficient would be for the whole party to be based on ranged attacks (casters included) and maintain distance between them and their enemies (ie at least 65 feet away to avoid a charge).
A look at many offensive spells' range, especially at low level, and at the limitations of sneak attack (less than 30 feet away) shows that this is suboptimal at best. The whole system leans towards short-range encounters and fights, hence melee.
|
|
Well you don't have to assume that you take the shot at the target if your ally is in the way you know. A miss due to shooting into melee could be because you purposefully pull your shot at the last moment due to a companion shifting into the direct line of a shot.
You know, something along the lines like you'd relaxed your grip/started to pull the trigger and it was too late to stop things completely but you manage to shift your aim just enough.
You start going down a slippery slope like that and you'll end up having to track the path of every projectile in the combat given enough time. After all, to be fair if I have a chance of hitting my ally when he's in melee combat with an enemy, shouldn't I also have a chance of hitting someone behind or in front of my target when I miss with a shot?
|
|
Actually you don't gain crap with the first feat, you already can have the second attack just by picking up a second weapon it just lowers the penalties from -6/-6 to -2/-2 which is why its the same because with ranged combat you get the advantage of hitting your enemy from 95 feet away with no fear of retaliation or at least a lessened fear of retaliation. For imp two weapon fighting you have the equivalent with ranged called many shot or rapid shot, etc. So how come it's good for the one style but unfair for the other when both have their own advantages.Well, then, to put it more clearly:
If you pick up a second weapon, you already have two attacks, just like you said, but you're severely penalized on your attack rolls with both of them. You then take feats to overcome those penalties, eventually ending up with a bonus attack.
If you pick up a bow, you do not already have two attacks. What you have is one attack that, situationally, penalizes you on your attack rolls when firing into melee. Sure, it's great for exchanging arrow fire with enemies who stay at range. But it's penalized for using it in typical dungeon encounters to help your fighters kill their melee foes.
In the first case, the dual-wielder can simply put down the second weapon, or better, hold it in his hand without trying to use it, and all his penalties evaporate. He makes one attack with his favorite weapon in his primary hand with no attack penalties.
In the second case, the archer cannot simply put down his bow to make one attack with his favorite weapon since he now has no weapons with which to attack. Sure, he can draw a sword and charge into melee, but I've been discussing characters built around the concept of being ranged specialists, which means their ability scores, class features, feat selection, and magic item preferences all lean toward using that bow (et. al.) and drawing a sword means forgoing all those selections, which is another big penalty. So firing into melee, or charging...
I would agree with you, your argument sounds reasonable, however like I said, every time I dm the game I get a ranged specialist, and I've seen the way it works out with players who fight at close range to get point blank shot and players who like to stay as far away from combat as possible.
I simply disagree that there is no advantage to being a ranged specialist. Especially since precise shot can be taken at first level just the same as two weapon fighting (albeit you have to be either human or a fighter) and then you don't have the disadvantages your talking about. So the argument stems between whether or not being a ranged specialist has advantages that make it worth a "feat tax" as you call it. I say yes, you say no. So what we are at is an impasse where it's solved by in your games houseruling away the feat and the firing into melee rules.
I would agree with you, your argument sounds reasonable, however like I said, every time I dm the game I get a ranged specialist, and I've seen the way it works out with players who fight at close range to get point blank shot and players who like to stay as far away from combat as possible.
I simply disagree that there is no advantage to being a ranged specialist. Especially since precise shot can be taken at first level just the same as two weapon fighting (albeit you have to be either human or a fighter) and then you don't have the disadvantages your talking about. So the argument stems between whether or not being a ranged specialist has advantages that make it worth a "feat tax" as you call it. I say yes, you say no. So what we are at is an impasse where it's solved by in your games houseruling away the feat and the firing into melee rules.
Actually, I don't houserule the feat away.
I don't even necessarily believe that the advantages of fighting from the back rank are insufficient to justify the feat tax.
Originally, I brought up the challenges faced by ranged specialists as a demonstration of why it would be piling on extra punishment to an already overly-punished style of combat to add houserules that let them injure or kill their allies.
In the RAW, with no houserules, are ranged specialists fairly balanced against melee specialists? IMO, no, they always end up on the short end of the stick for damage output, and invariably I hear complaints from them after the melee or the mage delivers a high damage hit, and the ranged specialists say something like "Gee, I wish I could even do half that amount of damage in one hit. I suck." Or something to that effect. I hear it all the time from them.
Sure, in return, they don't get hit as often, aren't as easily killed as the mages or fighters, and have a generally safer adventuring career.
As long as they don't mind being sub-par contributors to the party's effectiveness and are willing or able to feel adequately compensated by not being a drain on the party's resources (primarily healing).
On paper, this seems balanced.
Unfortunately, the human mind is not a spreadsheet, and it doesn't blance profit vs. loss in neat little columns in our minds. The poor player, sitting at a table dishing out 10 HP damage in his round while the barbarian is dishing out 20 HP feels inadequate.
And then he'll feel 10x as inadequate when the next 10 HP he dishes out goes into the barbarian's back instead of into an enemy.
Game design is not just about balancing the class features in a spreadsheet. It must take the emotional aspects into consideration. It [b]must[\b] consider how the players of the game feel about the game mechanics.
And ranged specialists in D&D/Pathfinder feel weak.
Hence my argument not to further weaken them, and weaken the entire party, by adding mechanics that cause these weak-feeling characters to become a drain on the party's resources.
Heck, you yourself, Lastknightleft, have pointed out that one of the compensating benefits of being a ranged-specialist is hanging out in the back, not getting hit, hence not draining the party's healing resource. Adding a hit-your-allies mechanic to ranged combat negates that beneifit entirely. Instead of you being hit a lot and draining resources, now it's you causing the party damage and draining resources. Either way, resources are lost and your cleric will be out of spells and asking to camp much sooner than he would be without the mechanic.
|
|
Heck, you yourself, Lastknightleft, have pointed out that one of the compensating benefits of being a ranged-specialist is hanging out in the back, not getting hit, hence not draining the party's healing resource. Adding a hit-your-allies mechanic to ranged combat negates that beneifit entirely. Instead of you being hit a lot and draining resources, now it's you causing the party damage and draining resources. Either way, resources are lost and your cleric will be out of spells and asking to camp much sooner than he would be without the mechanic.
Yeah, except that between PrCs, ranger spells from the completes that allow them to use bows in melee and threaten opportunity attacks and that player only bonus stuff I design for my players to make them unique I've never had the problems you've stated of them dishing out less damage at range.
Now maybe if I had core only ranged specialists they might have had that problem but I've always been an inclusive DM. Like I said, the problem only exists anyways from levels 1-4 where characters are coming into their own. I don't do the "these characters are great from the get-go" style of play, in fact I often enjoy as a player starting off with commoner levels and building into taking PC classes, but I don't make players in my games do that unless they want to. still the lower levels to me represent starting out warriors with basic martial training and just a little bit better than average (npc classes) abilities. Thus the mechanic reflects that, and then when they get the right feats, higher BABs etc. etc. they wind up not having to deal with the mechanic. In the end it's my groups playstyle and none of my players have ever complained.
I've never quite liked the idea that when you shoot into melee you have no chance of hitting a friendly target. It stands to reason if you miss badly enough you could hit your friend, particularly in the chaos of battle and exchange of blows that takes place during a round.
Our group has employed a house rule for this, and I was kind of hoping Pathfinder would put a variant rule in place. So my questions are:
1. Any change Pathfinder will implement rules for this sort of thing. Seems unlikely based on what I saw in the beta but I am curious; and
2. Do any of you house-rule this, and if so do you mind sharing your house-rules? I would like to consider possibilities for adjudicating this sort of things.
Thanks!
Ah, but my firend, the gods have graced the d20 wtih a natural 1 as well as a natural 20.
How about: without the percise shot feat, when a character shooting into melee rolls a natural 1 they hit an ally instead or the other combatant that was not the original target?
Ah, but my firend, the gods have graced the d20 wtih a natural 1 as well as a natural 20.
How about: without the percise shot feat, when a character shooting into melee rolls a natural 1 they hit an ally instead or the other combatant that was not the original target?
Interesting, but when you say "without the Precise Shot feat", this means people with the feat will never hit allies.
Which is fine, but then the Precise Shot feat just went from "should have" to "must have" and, with your rule suggestion, Precise Shot is mandatory.
I'm immediately wary of any rule that makes any feat either mandatory (everyone must have it) or obsolete (feat is a waste of ink on the page).
Interesting, but when you say "without the Precise Shot feat", this means people with the feat will never hit allies.
You never hit allies with melee attacks, either, so what's the big deal here?
|
|
You never hit allies with melee attacks, either, so what's the big deal here?
Interesting, but when you say "without the Precise Shot feat", this means people with the feat will never hit allies.
The big deal for him is that you need the feat in order to not hit them as opposed to melee which just never hits them.
See I honestly agree that making a ranged character hit an ally on a one is unfair if the meleers aren't facing similar risk. The only time I risk hitting allies is if they are providing cover or the character chooses to not take the standard -4 for firing into melee.
For the record I do the same thing with melee if you're trying to hit someone and there is an ally standing between you and them (reach weapon or large size etc. make this possible) the enemy has cover and you risk hitting cover the same as a ranged character.