I searched the archives but wasn't able to find what I was looking for, so if there is a link I would find it interesting.
My thoughts are that Deadly Aim, as written, is broken and needs fixing if not being thrown out entirely. It gives an archer too much power, and I favor the archery builds.
For the sake of making this fairly easy, let us set the examples as two ninth level fighters, both with a 16 in strength and dexterity, using a +2 weapon. Both have Armor Training 2 and Weapon Training 2 in their respective weapons. One fighter is using a composite longbow with a strength rating of +3 and the other fighter is using a falchion.
Given: each fighter has weapon focus, greater focus, weapon training 2, a +2 weapon, and a +3 stat bonus to attack.
Each fighter also has Weapon Specialization, Power Attack/Deadly Aim, improved critical. The archer has manyshot, rapid shot, point blank shot, and precise shot. The two handed fighter has furious focus.
Break down:
+9 bab, +3 str/dex, +2 focus, +2 weapon, +2 weapon training. This gives both fighters a +18/+13.
Falchion Fighter: +18/+13 for 2d4+8(15-20/x2)(avg: 13; 26 crit)
Power Attack: +18/+10 for 2d4+17 (avg 23; 46 crit)
Archer Fighter: +18/+13 for 1d8+7 (19-20/x3)(avg 11; 34 crit)
PBS: +19/+14 for 1d8+8 (19-20/x3)(avg 12; 37 crit)
Deadly Aim: +15/+10 for 1d8+13(19-20/x3)(avg 17; 52 crit)
PBS: +16/+11 for 1d8+14(19-20/x3)(avg 18; 55 crit)
Quick comparison: within 30 feet, the archer has a better chance to hit, will do slightly less damage, crits less often but harder. Factor in that Manyshot gives the archer's first arrow counts as two arrow, that gives us:
PBS+Many+Deadly= +16/+11 for 2d8+28/1d8+14.
What if both fighters hit with both attacks but don't critical.
Falchion average damage is 46.
Archer average damage is 54.
*Adding Rapid Shot will reduce the archers attack bonus to +14/+14/+9 that deals 4d8+56 if all the shots hit. That is an average damage of 74 on a full attack with all attacks hitting.
The two handed fighter will almost always do more damage per attack, but with Manyshot and rapid shot, the archer gets one more attack and an extra attacks worth of damage per full attack.
One would argue that the archer takes more penalties and will usually have a lower armor class, which is true, but the archer can do all of this from a range of 110 feet (220 with far shot) and the two handed fighter has to be in the thick of it.
I think that deadly aim needs to be fixed. Make using the feat a standard action, or only giving a -1/+1 per 4 points of BAB, or only working on the first attack of the round and doesn't apply to manyshot.
I could probably have written this better, but I don't usually do comparisons like this. Any other thoughts or breakdowns would be appreciated. Thanks.
Costs currently not considered:
Item costs: The bow will cost more. Simple as that. A +2 mighty (+3 strength) composite Longbow is 8,700gp. The Falchion is 8,375gp, while 400 gold doesn't seem like much it can add up quickly especially if you look at higher strength bows (a mighty +10 is going to run an extra 1,000gp).
Item Penalties: If anything happens to the archer's strength he loses out with his bow. If his strength goes up he's not getting all the damage he could. If his strength goes down not only does he lose damage but he takes a penalty to hit too. The falchion user will always get the most from his strength and can upgrade his weapon easier since he doesn't have to worry about strength ratings. In addition he gets x3 damage with power attack and strength and a half with the falchion.
Feat Costs: The bow requires more feats to be used with the same accuracy. Without precise shot shooting into melee causes the archer to take a -4 to hit. Without improved precise shot having someone between the archer and the target gives the target a +4 on AC. These are problems the falchion user doesn't have to contend with. Taking those extra feats means the bow user also must take point blank shot (even if he might want to it is still a lack of choice and delays access to the feats he needs).
Ammuntion Costs: The bow requires arrows -- the falchion does not. Without arrows the bow is useless, and if the archer is using non-magical arrows they are a prime target for destruction (shatter spell, warp wood, etc).
Options of use: Power attack has more options of use than deadly aim. Power attack can be used with one handed weapons for use with a shield, or two handed weapons for more damage. It can be used with two weapon fighting as well. Deadly Aim (and ranged combat in general) only really works with one weapon -- the bow. You can throw weapons, but have to spend more feats to make it work, or use the sling or crossbow but these either take more feats or can't be fired as fast.
Using the same stats in all locations doesn't really work here either. This is due to the fact you must choose where those stats sit. The falchion user will be much better off with an 18 strength since he'll gain 2 more damage with that (in addition to another +1 to hit).
AoO costs: The bow provokes (unless a feat is taken) the falchion does not. The bow also doesn't threaten meaning a secondary weapon is needed if you want to take AoO's and use an archery style (a second weapon that needs to be enchanted too). The Falchion user can flank while the archer cannot do so. There are more means to disrupt an archer's shot than the falchion's swing.
Heres my thought- your comparison is completely flawed since you assumed both fighters would have a 16 in each. The falchion fighter has much less use of dexterity.
Completely flawed? I had mentioned that I was intentionally making it easy. Perhaps I should have said that both fighters had 2 16s and the archer put one in strength and one in dex. The falchion fighter would have put a 16 in strength and constitution. Still, the comparison is not completely flawed.
If you are going to comment, please make it constructive and support your argument. :)
Heres my thought- your comparison is completely flawed since you assumed both fighters would have a 16 in each. The falchion fighter has much less use of dexterity.
In addition to what Alexander said so the melee fighter should have a higher strength by 9th, your damage for the melee fighter is too low (should be +4 for Strength, +2 Weapon Spec, +2 Weapon, +2 Weapon training for +10 or +19 with PA)
Of course I would go with a x3 weapon (equal to the bow critical range) and have the 9th level fighter have (at least) 18 strength.
So that would give the melee fighter:
GreatAxe Fighter: +19/+14 for 1d12+12(19-20/x3)(avg: 18; 55 crit)
Power Attack: +19/+11 for 1d12+21 (avg 27; 82 crit)
vs your numbers in the earlier post:
Archer Fighter: +18/+13 for 1d8+7 (19-20/x3)(avg 11; 34 crit)
PBS: +19/+14 for 1d8+8 (19-20/x3)(avg 12; 37 crit)
Deadly Aim: +15/+10 for 1d8+13(19-20/x3)(avg 17; 52 crit)
PBS: +16/+11 for 1d8+14(19-20/x3)(avg 18; 55 crit)
My two cents: If any feat is overpowered, it's Rapid Shot and/or Manyshot, not Deadly Aim. It's the extra attack(s) that really increases the total damage.
No, it's not broken or overpowered imo. Neither is rapid/manyshot.
It's overpowered if your GM is dumb. It's underpowered if your GM is smart. There are lots of techniques and spells that can be used to foil a bow-based character. However, most GMs do tend to underestimate the damage output of physical-ranged characters.
Costs currently not considered:
Item costs: The bow will cost more. Simple as that. A +2 mighty (+3 strength) composite Longbow is 8,700gp. The Falchion is 8,375gp, while 400 gold doesn't seem like much it can add up quickly especially if you look at higher strength bows (a mighty +10 is going to run an extra 1,000gp).
Item Penalties: If anything happens to the archer's strength he loses out with his bow. If his strength goes up he's not getting all the damage he could. If his strength goes down not only does he lose damage but he takes a penalty to hit too. The falchion user will always get the most from his strength and can upgrade his weapon easier since he doesn't have to worry about strength ratings. In addition he gets x3 damage with power attack and strength and a half with the falchion.
Feat Costs: The bow requires more feats to be used with the same accuracy. Without precise shot shooting into melee causes the archer to take a -4 to hit. Without improved precise shot having someone between the archer and the target gives the target a +4 on AC. These are problems the falchion user doesn't have to contend with. Taking those extra feats means the bow user also must take point blank shot (even if he might want to it is still a lack of choice and delays access to the feats he needs).
Ammuntion Costs: The bow requires arrows -- the falchion does not. Without arrows the bow is useless, and if the archer is using non-magical arrows they are a prime target for destruction (shatter spell, warp wood, etc).
Options of use: Power attack has more options of use than deadly aim. Power attack can be used with one handed weapons for use with a shield, or two handed weapons for more damage. It can be used with two weapon fighting as well. Deadly Aim (and ranged combat in general) only really works with one weapon -- the bow. You can throw weapons, but have to spend more feats to make it work, or use the sling or crossbow but these either take more feats or can't be fired as...
Two handed fighting is given -x/+1.5x with power attack...if I'm not mistaken. You are indeed correct about the drawbacks of using a bow and the limitation placed on Deadly Aim.
What is the value of that range increment though? Having the ability to do similar damage with no fear of getting hit back is amazing. The ranged fighter won't have to spend as much gold on armor items because he will want to take full advantage of his higher dex, so he will save money to buy those arrow and higher strength rating on his bow.
This is all being caused by my player's, get this, bard/fighter/arcane archer out dpsing the two weapon fighter. This led me to compare the archer to what should be the biggest damage dealing fighter.
The assumptions in that comparison are so far off that it's unusable:
Add to that the fact that a two-handed fighter gets to use 1.5 times his strength bonus for damage, this difference becomes even more significant
A better weapon for comparison would have been a greataxe, which does 1d12 x3, to compare to the 1d8 x3 the archer gets.
But your choice of weapons would have been very good and telling, if you had done things right: Crits are a big thing for fighters. They get to multiply their damage with a crit, and later even add extra effects like blinding the sucker.
A fighter with a falchion and Improved Critical will do crits on 15-20/x2. While the x2 is not as good as the bow's x3, the 15-20 more than makes up for it with its supremacy compared to the pitiful 19-20.
If you used real statistical damage (which adds extra damage from crits modified by the percentile chance for a crit), the numbers would look quite a bit differently.
Not to mention the option of blinding or stunning your victim on higher levels.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Why don't you even out the comparison by giving the falchion fighter 3 more feats and counting crits to make the comparison more fair?
One issue is that you are comparing a fighter with 3 more feats to another. All fighters get are feats. So to a certain extent one should expect the archer to do better.
I added just critical focus to the 2 handed fighter and ran it against AC 24.
2 Hander got 37 DPR counting crits. (feel free to check my math as furious focus isn't coded in)
Archer got 39 with the bow not counting PBS but counting crits.
Issues and complications:
If we add gear and stats from leveling up - lets say +6 dex to the archer and +6 str to the 2 hander:
2 Hander DPR goes to 55.
Archer goes to 52.
Someone in the party casts Haste:
2 hander does 89
archer does 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue here is that bows scale really fast with 3 main feats: rapid shot, deadly aim, and manyshot. You have all of those in this build and that is why the numbers look so good.
2 handed weapons scale well with power attack and furious focus.
But past scaling with feats, they scale with improvements to ability scores and buffs. A 2 handed fighter scales faster with ability score boosts, BaB, buffs that boost attack modifiers, buffs that boost damage modifiers (because of the difference crit range and the number of iterative attacks per level this is not always true), and buffs that give extra attacks. That is pretty much all of the ways to be buffed. Thus the general rule is that 2 Handed fighters just scale better. The rather low ability scores you used in your example sort of exacerbates the high base damage vs. better scaling issue.
Also the 2 Hander gets hosed less by DR (though in play the archer is usually better off against material DR because of the low cost of arrows).
However, most GMs do tend to underestimate the damage output of physical-ranged characters.
I think a lot of GMs underestimate the damage output of any warrior. A couple of GMs I play with still seem to be stuck in 3e mode, where warriors didn't do that much damage it seems, or at least the warriors they witnessed.
Enter Pathfinder with the changes to the warrior classes. Paladins destroying the targets of their divine wrath, rangers turning favoured enemies into pincushions, and fighters just thrashing everything.
Suddenly it's not just spellcasters that can dispatch enemies quickly and they land on their backs.
Well, it seems so far that the consensus is that Deadly Aim is not overpowered. I am the GM and really did underestimate the ability of the archer. As their levels have gone up, my enemies are fighting smarter so that the archer isn't unloading a full attack into them as often.
I know full well what a two handed fighter can do. I build a two handed fighter that ended with a 32 strength and with a single attack did 8d4+60 using power attack and vital strike; he also has 5 attacks in a round dealing 2d4+60+1d6 on each attack.
The same archer at 20th had 6 attacks dealing (2d8+50, first arrow) and 1d8+25 on the other attacks.
If each fighter hit with all their attacks, the falchion fighter will do an average of 342 damage without crits, and the archer will do only 206. However, the archer can do that damage from 220 feet with no penalty. Now, I'm still not 100% on how the range increments work, but the archer can go up to 10 range increments and still attack.
The assumptions in that comparison are so far off that it's unusable:
A melee fighter will devote significantly more resources to his strength. While an archer will often have half-decent strength (to put into damage) and good dexterity (as this increases attack bonuses), swordsmen will have high strength and only moderate dexterity. They can use some dex since even with the heaviest armour, they can get a bit of a dex bonus, but it's not anywhere near as important as to warrant an even distribution between strength and dexterity. It's much more likely that dex will start with 14 or less and get some boosts with armour, while strength will often start at 18 (especially with racial bonuses) and be increased at every opportunity (every level bonus will go there, stat booster items will be bought for strength first and foremost, and the same goes for inherent bonuses) Add to that the fact that a two-handed fighter gets to use 1.5 times his strength bonus for damage, this difference becomes even more significant
While Deadly Aim only gives you +2 to damage for every -1 to attacks, two-handed power attackers will get +3. And they can get Furious Focus for an attack boost for their first attack in a round, using one of the many feats they don't have to blow on archery stuff Your choice of weapons is completely misleading. For the melee fighter, you're using a weapon that is usually chosen for crit potential, and then you completely ignore crits. A better weapon for comparison would have been a greataxe, which does 1d12 x3, to compare to the 1d8 x3 the archer gets.
But your choice of weapons would have been very good and telling, if you had done things right: Crits are a big thing for fighters. They get to multiply their damage with a crit, and later even add extra effects like blinding the sucker.
A fighter with a falchion and Improved Critical will do crits on 15-20/x2. While the x2 is not as good as the bow's x3, the 15-20 more than makes up for it with its supremacy compared to the...
Thank you. Like I said, I'm not too experienced at doing fine point comparisons, yet. I guess I'm one of those GMs stuck in the old days. I was used to having combat last 15 rounds. I rarely see a fight last more than 5 on what should have been a challenging encounter.
|
This is all being caused by my player's, get this, bard/fighter/arcane archer out dpsing the two weapon fighter. This led me to compare the archer to what should be the biggest damage dealing fighter.
There is your problem...even here you are comparing the wrong thing. Two Handed and Two Weapon are very different and function much differently.
The Arcane Archer is going to do just that...lots of damage.
The Fighter (obviously not yours) should be more focused on the fact that he gets a metric crap-ton of feats to make a PC that can trip, disarm, sunder, grapple or bullrush any enemy into any favorable position he wants!
Tell your Fighter he is doing it wrong...combat isn't all about the damage. Its all about winning while making the enemy unable to do damage to the Players. I made a Two Weapon Fighting Phalanx Fighter that has a 20ft. AoO range and as long as that enemy isn't a quadraped he won't be standing if he comes anywhere near me...not because he is dead but because my Trip and Combat Maneuvers are nuts.
|
|
My two cents: If any feat is overpowered, it's Rapid Shot and/or Manyshot, not Deadly Aim. It's the extra attack(s) that really increases the total damage.
As a crossbow ranger.. Rapid shot is the only thing that keeps me valid in some fights @ level 6 in PFS (I just jumped to level 8 using GM credits, so we'll see how that affects things)
Manyshot isn't available to crossbow style ranged person, but remember if you miss with your main attack with many shot, you miss with both arrows, cutting damage output considerably.
It's really hard to picture a 9th level fighter having only a +2 weapon. my 8th level ranger mentioned above has a +1 Holy Heavy crossbow, +2 Dex belt, +2 cloak of resistance, +2 mythral chain mail, and wands of cure light wounds and gravity bow. (not to mention lots of consumables) This is a character who only got half his wealth by level in a good number of the scenarios played, as they were GM credits... the melee fighter should have at least a +2 STR item and a bonus value of +3 or +4 to his weapon.
Also the Melee fighter is hitting less often, meaning that DR (present quite a bit by that time) is factored in less often.
This is all being caused by my player's, get this, bard/fighter/arcane archer out dpsing the two weapon fighter. This led me to compare the archer to what should be the biggest damage dealing fighter.There is your problem...even here you are comparing the wrong thing. Two Handed and Two Weapon are very different and function much differently.
The Arcane Archer is going to do just that...lots of damage.
The Fighter (obviously not yours) should be more focused on the fact that he gets a metric crap-ton of feats to make a PC that can trip, disarm, sunder, grapple or bullrush any enemy into any favorable position he wants!
Tell your Fighter he is doing it wrong...combat isn't all about the damage. Its all about winning while making the enemy unable to do damage to the Players. I made a Two Weapon Fighting Phalanx Fighter that has a 20ft. AoO range and as long as that enemy isn't a quadraped he won't be standing if he comes anywhere near me...not because he is dead but because my Trip and Combat Maneuvers are nuts.
I realize that. The vast difference in the damage outputs made me look a little deeper. I see that my analysis is flawed...I brought it to the board to ensure that I wasn't overreacting. My player is now arguing that he should be allowed to use Manyshot on a single attack...since it can be used on a full attack it makes no sense because he has more time to make a single attack.
Question, does vital strike work for a bow? I have read the feat multiple times and nowhere have I seen a melee only restriction.
Vital strike works on any weapon, but takes a standard action to use meaning the archer is generally better off simply full attacking (since that allows multishot/etc).
I would suggest looking at each character's defenses too -- a spell casting character generally has lower defenses and hp than a martial character (with the caveat that this can be changed if the spell casting character has time to prepare -- something that shouldn't be a given).
My two cents: If any feat is overpowered, it's Rapid Shot and/or Manyshot, not Deadly Aim. It's the extra attack(s) that really increases the total damage.As a crossbow ranger.. Rapid shot is the only thing that keeps me valid in some fights @ level 6 in PFS (I just jumped to level 8 using GM credits, so we'll see how that affects things)
Exactly -- Rapid Shot is so good that it can take something really crappy (like a crossbow archer) and turn it into something halfway decent.
I don't think Rapid Shot is overpowered, but it blows the doors off of Deadly Aim in general.
My player is now arguing that he should be allowed to use Manyshot on a single attack...since it can be used on a full attack it makes no sense because he has more time to make a single attack.
No, no.
I can understand the logic behind this but the thing is if you allow manyshot to be used with both single attack and full attack you blow the power and usefullness of this feat up to sky. The restriction is there for balance reasons, not logical reasons
My player is now arguing that he should be allowed to use Manyshot on a single attack...since it can be used on a full attack it makes no sense because he has more time to make a single attack.
No, no.
I can understand the logic behind this but the thing is if you allow manyshot to be used with both single attack and full attack you blow the power and usefullness of this feat up to sky. The restriction is there for balance reasons, not logical reasons
I told him the same thing. He still doesn't understand and has grudgingly agreed that he will not argue with the GM's ruling. I told him to look into the Vital Strike line if he wants to do more damage on a single attack.
Another reason I asked about vital strike because I've got a player that is building a halfling rogue sniper. Using focused shot and vital strike makes her attacks a little more dangerous. The concept is feat heavy and really won't bloom until 10th level.
I think a lot of GMs underestimate the damage output of any warrior.
Well, yeah the damage globally has gone up for the physical classes. But a ranged character has to take less risks to deal damage. It's much easier to deal damage 100 feet away than 5/10 ft. away. You might not be in a bad guy's fireball or within 30 ft. of another target. Sure you have to deal with (soft) cover and firing-into-melee penalties. But those difficulties go away.
Despite the risks being less, the damage has still substantially gone up. It's still up to the GM to contain the physical-ranged characters with specific mechanics.
|
Does the analysis assumes that the archer took Precise Shot? If shooting from the back of the party, with allies between him and the targets, he's taking -8 to hit vs. those in melee with his front line allies, and only -4 with he has Precise Shot. But until he gets Improved Precise Shot, he's almost always taking -4 to hit... (most GMs forget about that annoying soft cover)
Does the analysis assumes that the archer took Precise Shot? If shooting from the back of the party, with allies between him and the targets, he's taking -8 to hit vs. those in melee with his front line allies, and only -4 with he has Precise Shot. But until he gets Improved Precise Shot, he's almost always taking -4 to hit... (most GMs forget about that annoying soft cover)
How interesting. I fall into most GMs catagory then. Any page reference that I can quick look up?
Does the analysis assumes that the archer took Precise Shot? If shooting from the back of the party, with allies between him and the targets, he's taking -8 to hit vs. those in melee with his front line allies, and only -4 with he has Precise Shot. But until he gets Improved Precise Shot, he's almost always taking -4 to hit... (most GMs forget about that annoying soft cover)How interesting. I fall into most GMs catagory then. Any page reference that I can quick look up?
Uh yeah that makes a big difference.
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
|
|
Does the analysis assumes that the archer took Precise Shot? If shooting from the back of the party, with allies between him and the targets, he's taking -8 to hit vs. those in melee with his front line allies, and only -4 with he has Precise Shot. But until he gets Improved Precise Shot, he's almost always taking -4 to hit... (most GMs forget about that annoying soft cover)How interesting. I fall into most GMs catagory then. Any page reference that I can quick look up?
Look at the precise shot feat and the cover rules are in the combat section... pretty much sift through the whole combat section as cover/softcover/line of effect/line of sight all have an impact on archers.
How interesting. I fall into most GMs catagory then. Any page reference that I can quick look up?Look at the precise shot feat and the cover rules are in the combat section... pretty much sift through the whole combat section as cover/softcover/line of effect/line of sight all have an impact on archers.
They also have effect on those using reach weapons too (or attacking creatures not adjacent to themselves).
|
|
I've always known archers can be much better at damage dealing than melee, since they don't usually have to move around the battlefield.
The one thing I'm kind of surprised at is... no one pointed out that the original example archer couldn't even have Manyshot... he's only got a Dex of 16. ;)
d'Oh! sounds like the analysis needs to be redone with a STR 20 melee guy and a DEX 20 / STR 16 ranged guy...
I've always known archers can be much better at damage dealing than melee, since they don't usually have to move around the battlefield.
The one thing I'm kind of surprised at is... no one pointed out that the original example archer couldn't even have Manyshot... he's only got a Dex of 16. ;)
Too true.
I realize that my core problem with the situation is that archers usually get to make a full attack every round. The fighter charges the enemy and hits him/her really hard. Whatever got hit is not going to stick around to allow itself to get hit with a full attack. My other fighter is grumbling that she never gets to make a full attack.
I feel bad, but I'm not going to have an intelligent opponent just stand there and take a full attack. I'm using cover to limit the archer, to a similar extent. They recently met up with a team of Kobolds that used spring attack to great effect. Especially since they were the Scout alternate class from the APG and got SA on every attack. Nothing says love like 1d3-1+5d6 plus poison. :)
|
My two cents: If any feat is overpowered, it's Rapid Shot and/or Manyshot, not Deadly Aim. It's the extra attack(s) that really increases the total damage.
This is my feeling also. My particular least favored feat is manyshot, it doesn't have a penalty on attack rolls, and it's for archers only which are the only ranged combatants that are particularly nasty.
Take away Deadly aim and you hurt crossbowmen, slingers, throwers, etc. Take away Manyshot and you are only affecting the problem child of the ranged weapons.
I've always known archers can be much better at damage dealing than melee, since they don't usually have to move around the battlefield.
The one thing I'm kind of surprised at is... no one pointed out that the original example archer couldn't even have Manyshot... he's only got a Dex of 16. ;)
Too true.
I realize that my core problem with the situation is that archers usually get to make a full attack every round. The fighter charges the enemy and hits him/her really hard. Whatever got hit is not going to stick around to allow itself to get hit with a full attack. My other fighter is grumbling that she never gets to make a full attack.
I feel bad, but I'm not going to have an intelligent opponent just stand there and take a full attack. I'm using cover to limit the archer, to a similar extent. They recently met up with a team of Kobolds that used spring attack to great effect. Especially since they were the Scout alternate class from the APG and got SA on every attack. Nothing says love like 1d3-1+5d6 plus poison. :)
The party caster should be using spells to trap the bad guys or make it hard for them to run away. If his buddies don't get on board soon that fighter is in for a long campaign.
edit:why doesn't he have a ranged weapon. If you can't close on the enemy tag them from a distance.
Another thing to consider is the +2 to hit from flanking. It's an advantage that melee fighters get that the archers miss out on.
Yes, you don't get it all the time, so it's hard to calculate into DPS formulas, but it is a factor.
The archer runs out of arrows, nobody keeps track of arrows anymore.
In a single fight lets assume this archer is pumping out 5 arrows a round full attacking, Hes out of a quiver in 4 combat rounds.
How many archers are bouncing around carrying 40, 80 or 120 arrows? None I have seen.
Efficient quiver covers that some, let's you carry more arrows, but there is still a finite number.
Also:
Along bow had HUGE range, the "oh i just pick up my arrows after battle" isnt 'real' as if you miss, which the heck is that arrow going to go?
Not just laying around waiting for you. If it's in a dungeon it hit a wall, got news, its destroyed. Maybe it hit a wooden door, or some furniture or something? Seriously, how many arrows are you really going to be able to 'retrieve' after a battle?
Rules that make 'archers better than swordsmen' take this factor into consideration, player who don't want to be bothered with counting ammo don't. So if you are not tracking ammo, then the archer is going to come out way better.
So if you dont want to count ammo (your choice) you either have to restrict access to things like strength bows, or deadly aim, or something to even them out with meele builds, or just deal with the fact that they are better.
But the Archer DOES even out with the meele IF you track that ammo.
You do know you can carry several hundred in your handy haversack, and refill your quiver after any given fight right? My paladin currently has over 400 arrows in his possession, in bundles of 20 in his magical backpack.
Said paladin has both Power Attack and Deadly Aim. Str18 and Dex16 (with belt +2 to both). Does 5 more damage per hit with his sword, which also has better threat range, and is easier to use. Bows are a hassle, as you need a metric ton of feats to make it viable. Getting to a decent damage potential is not too hard, but to not take AoOs in melee, ignore concealment and cover (which hardly ever affect melee), and mount a decent defense... you have to work for it.
To be effective for someone doing melee: Power Attack. 1 feat.
|
|
I've always known archers can be much better at damage dealing than melee, since they don't usually have to move around the battlefield.
The one thing I'm kind of surprised at is... no one pointed out that the original example archer couldn't even have Manyshot... he's only got a Dex of 16. ;)
Too true.
I realize that my core problem with the situation is that archers usually get to make a full attack every round. The fighter charges the enemy and hits him/her really hard. Whatever got hit is not going to stick around to allow itself to get hit with a full attack. My other fighter is grumbling that she never gets to make a full attack.
I feel bad, but I'm not going to have an intelligent opponent just stand there and take a full attack. I'm using cover to limit the archer, to a similar extent. They recently met up with a team of Kobolds that used spring attack to great effect. Especially since they were the Scout alternate class from the APG and got SA on every attack. Nothing says love like 1d3-1+5d6 plus poison. :)
I think your Melee fighter also needs to realize they are forcing the enemy to change behavior, and that is part of the role they fill.
If the enemy has to retreat/move to avoid a full attack, they aren't doing what they would ideally like to do. They aren't taking full attacks, or they are casting on the defensive, etc...
Melee characters have effects on the battlefield beyond just damage.
I've always known archers can be much better at damage dealing than melee, since they don't usually have to move around the battlefield.
The one thing I'm kind of surprised at is... no one pointed out that the original example archer couldn't even have Manyshot... he's only got a Dex of 16. ;)
Too true.
I realize that my core problem with the situation is that archers usually get to make a full attack every round. The fighter charges the enemy and hits him/her really hard. Whatever got hit is not going to stick around to allow itself to get hit with a full attack. My other fighter is grumbling that she never gets to make a full attack.
I feel bad, but I'm not going to have an intelligent opponent just stand there and take a full attack. I'm using cover to limit the archer, to a similar extent. They recently met up with a team of Kobolds that used spring attack to great effect. Especially since they were the Scout alternate class from the APG and got SA on every attack. Nothing says love like 1d3-1+5d6 plus poison. :)
I think your Melee fighter also needs to realize they are forcing the enemy to change behavior, and that is part of the role they fill.
If the enemy has to retreat/move to avoid a full attack, they aren't doing what they would ideally like to do. They aren't taking full attacks, or they are casting on the defensive, etc...
Melee characters have effects on the battlefield beyond just damage.
Yes lets say you are fighting an npc archer a melee character which has the feats to take step up can now follow the enemy archer and gets an Aoo on the enemy. This is assuming the enemy does not have point blank master but it is true. The archer does not get that.
|
|
Where I see the bow really pulling ahead is when you add in things that give bonus damage *per attack*. Bardic song, holy, bane, flaming, etc... all adding multiple times per round for a single effect.
For the Two Handed fighter bardic song adds four points of damage at 10th level.
For the archer bardic song is adding +8 damage.
Holy adds 4d6 damage for the hasted Two Hander, and 8d6 for the archer.
Make a huge difference.
Haste is the single hit/ round guys best friend but the archer loves bonus damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Where I see the bow really pulling ahead is when you add in things that give bonus damage *per attack*. Bardic song, holy, bane, flaming, etc... all adding multiple times per round for a single effect.
For the Two Handed fighter bardic song adds four points of damage at 10th level.
For the archer bardic song is adding +8 damage.
Holy adds 4d6 damage for the hasted Two Hander, and 8d6 for the archer.
Make a huge difference.
Haste is the single hit/ round guys best friend but the archer loves bonus damage.
The difference in crit chance actually covers a lot of it, especially against higher AC enemies. The difference isn't as big as you might guess. Just to reference the dpr post above, the difference is closer to 2/3rds than 1/2.
It doesn't address stuff that does get multiplied on a crit, but for flat bonuses like bardic song, the archer doesn't necessarily benefit much more.
I'm actually suffering from this particular system shock as well. I have a Paladin and an Archer in my party, and at first, it was a nightmare. They were and still are dealing hordes of damage. In fact, during the last combat, the archer narrowly made a save that kept him from dropping a party member a round due to a dominate. He did far more damage than the paladin with a smite. With a bard in the party, it tends to get crazy, and the bard just got haste.
Still, that said, it's not all bad. It's harder to get away from a melee fighter, since he can usually just go around a corner to get away from an archer. In tight quarters, the archer is penalized due to AoO (both giving and receiving, though feats and archetypes impact that). His bow is more vulnerable to sunder, as well.
By all means, take into account cover at least. I'm not sure if it's completely RAI, but I count both soft and hard cover, meaning that the archer needs to line his shots up more carefully (though it usually doesn't impact the fight that much, five foot steps usually take care of at least one of the mods). Arrow counts are important as well, now that you mention it. (Though the archer is FAR more versatile when it comes to DR penetration, since he can easily and cheaply change arrow types).
Some other caveats to keep in mind:
Illumination: If the target is in dim lighting, then there is a 20% miss chance. Flat. One in five of those really dangerous arrows are going to miss.
Concealment: Trees, bushes, smoke. Use 'em all.
While those all count for melee attacks, the archer has a lot more space between him and his target for them to use dirty tricks.
Not to mention spells and effects that help to block ranged attacks (wind wall, entropic shield, etc.)
Also, when all else fails, dropping prone gives a big bonus vs. ranged attacks.
I've noticed that Pathfinder tends to even things out really well. Surprisingly well.