I have a campaign where one player is running a halfling ranger who rides a wolf animal companion around.
The player is great, the character is great (he fits well into the campaign world), etc. I'm not begrudging the player at all. In fact, he strove to make his character excellent at killing giants without fully realizing that giants would be a fairly common enemy later on, and he is now a giant-killing machine -- which is totally fine with me.
I'm just curious about game balance here.
As written, ranged characters on mounts can effectively get double moves AND full attacks, every round. Moreover, they can make their attacks at any point along their path of movement.
Melee types -- can't.
This makes the mounted archer INCREDIBLY maneuverable, while the melee character -- is not.
Time and again, the mounted archer in the party has dished out tons of damage while the mounted or on-foot melee character has had trouble getting up to the fight, let along dishing out damage.
Part of this is character optimization -- the melee fighter is not well optimized at all, while the archer is. However, I can't help but see a mechanics issue here.
Why play a melee fighter when you can play a small archer on a wolf?
I don't know. Is he causing issues in your campaign? Then that points strongly to yes, for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, melee attackers that don't have pounce are underpowered. I'm glad to see that someone else has had that revealed to them, maybe in time we'll get the rest of the forum to accept that fighters/rogues/monks need help... but alas I fear I dream to big.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics. Always tactics.
Well-built archers are damage dealing machines, mounted or not. Mounted archers have the additional value of mobility while still full attacking.
Several things can provide challenges to archers. The simplest is terrain. You don't have to have every fight occur in an open field. Fights can happen in the midst of trees, boulders, walls, fences or even amongst stalagmites and stalagtites. If there are only a few openings where clear shots are possible, then that severely limits the maneuverability of the archer. A halfway intelligent monster will utilize cover during combat to reduce the effectiveness of archers.
Make sure you are applying ranged attack rules properly. Firing into combat can invoke multiple penalties. The most commonly overlooked penalty I see in ranged combat situations is the fact that your own melee party members can provide cover for the enemies they are fighting. That cover will make it harder for the archer to hit. To avoid this penalty requires two feats, "precise shot" and "improved precise shot".
There are any number of spells which greatly reduce or in some cases utterly negate ranged attack effectiveness. Use them when they make sense. To negate movement toss some caltrops on the battlefield, or use other techniques to lock down the archer's mount.
Also, your enemies can also have archers. If your halfling is out in the open getting clear shots on your monsters and NPCs, your monsters and NPCs should have clear shots on the halfling. Or the halfling's wolf mount.
Why play a melee fighter when you can play an archer on a wolf? Because "protection from missiles" or "wind wall" don't negate melee characters.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
Are you enforcing this -4 penalty? A -4 to hit is a hefty price to pay for full movement.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The penalty's for a double move, not a regular move. Most mounts are faster than 30 ft., more so if hasted or using horseshoes of speed or the like.
Also for the feat investment required simply not to suck at mounted archery, it had better be good. And it does take a hefty feat investment.
Mounts are in general strong because they give you a big advantage in the action economy.
I make my players walk.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me, Werebat. Everyone in the entirety of Asia in the 13th Century would like to have a word with you. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me, Werebat. Everyone in the entirety of Asia in the 13th Century would like to have a word with you. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
To be fair the Mongolians were notorious munchkins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, melee attackers that don't have pounce are underpowered. I'm glad to see that someone else has had that revealed to them, maybe in time we'll get the rest of the forum to accept that fighters/rogues/monks need help... but alas I fear I dream to big.
Yeah, I was kind of expecting this. I'll bite. Why is it that melee attackers are UNDERpowered, and not that mounted archers are OVERpowered?
I understand that terrain and other things can hamper a mounted archer, but those things will tend to hamper the melee fighter too. For example, fighting on ice or in a bog...
Quibbles aside, on the face of it, one character getting full iterative attacks every round while minimizing exposure to enemy attacks is clearly superior to another character who is SITUATIONALLY able to get full iterative attacks, ONLY when exposing himself to enemy attacks.
What's the payoff for being a melee fighter?
Protection from Missiles doesn't cut it, as that spell is all but useless against PCs, who will have magic weapons to overcome it VERY early on.
Wind Wall might pose a problem to an archer in 5% of the fights in a campaign, if that. What about the other 95%?
There are a lot of penalties to using archery that must be offset by feats - -4 or -8 because of mount movement, up to -4 if firing into a melee, and -4 if your allies are blocking your line of fire.
That's 2 feats (mounted combat & mounted archery) to reduce the first to -2 or -4, 2 more feats (point blank shot & precise shot) to get rid of the firing into melee penalty, and another feat with a Dexterity 19 and BAB +11 requirement to get rid of the other -4.
5 feats, an ability score, and at least 11 levels - and you still have a -2 or -4 penalty for doing something that melee characters can't.
...and there are also the requirements of a combat trained mount and a little investment in skills that non-mounted characters don't need, or a huge investment in ride to be able to reliably control your untrained mount.
Edit to add: Also, area-effect fear effects having two chances at disabling you - one save for you, one save for the mount - is a pretty big risk to take where you might find yourself feeling fine as your mount panicks and starts fleeing at high speed.
Hm. This character is a ranger who rides his animal companion around, which does sacrifice animal companion attacks (but also tends to keep the animal companion out of harm's way). To be fair, AoE fear effects HAVE come into play more than once, although the PC can still get full iteratives as the mount runs away.
Goggles of Foefinding (MIC) cost 2500 gp and allow you to negate one of the -4 penalties you mention (cover). Not PF canon, but many DMs will allow 3.5 stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, melee attackers that don't have pounce are underpowered. I'm glad to see that someone else has had that revealed to them, maybe in time we'll get the rest of the forum to accept that fighters/rogues/monks need help... but alas I fear I dream to big.Yeah, I was kind of expecting this. I'll bite. Why is it that melee attackers are UNDERpowered, and not that mounted archers are OVERpowered?
Mostly because its the odd man out. Spellcasters are also doing their thing casting (ranged) spells twice a round (once they get quicken) and (still) taking their move action. Because the Druid and Barbarian can pounce (as can a Summoner's Eidolon) which lets you grab a double move and full attack (with charge bonus). So are all those overpowered... or are melee move and single attackers just underpowered... I'mma go with the latter.
What's the payoff for being a melee fighter?
Aside from it being super-fun, (I like melee), it doesn't shine in a lot of ways.
However it can be a fairly effective way to lock opponents in and restrict their actions. By getting in the mix directly with your enemies you have more chances to use attacks of opportunity and cleaving. It also works much better with Combat Maneuvers, most of which are difficult to employ at range. Also it lets you flank with a rogue and open up a world of hurt with sneak-attack.
Is any of this really "better" than ranged combat? Not really most of the time, but it is a lot of fun.
I understand that terrain and other things can hamper a mounted archer, but those things will tend to hamper the melee fighter too. For example, fighting on ice or in a bog...
Quibbles aside, on the face of it, one character getting full iterative attacks every round while minimizing exposure to enemy attacks is clearly superior to another character who is SITUATIONALLY able to get full iterative attacks, ONLY when exposing himself to enemy attacks.
What's the payoff for being a melee fighter?
Protection from Missiles doesn't cut it, as that spell is all but useless against PCs, who will have magic weapons to overcome it VERY early on.
Wind Wall might pose a problem to an archer in 5% of the fights in a campaign, if that. What about the other 95%?
If your halfling has enough room to run around on his wolf popping arrows then your goblin cavaliers have enough room to lance him down on their boars. But that's a digression.
But really the pay off to being a melee fighter is area control and the ease of doing truck loads of damage with little real investment. Archery requires a hefty feat investment before it comes into fruition, once a melee character gets a form of pounce, power attack, and a nice two hander everything else becomes flavoring for the type of melee fighter you want to be. Throw combat maneuvers into the mix (what's the hardness and hp of your bow again?) and you have a solid vehicle to control a battlespace without expending resources.
I do think more information is required on the rest of the group. And honestly about your normal encounter design. Giants should be treated like any humanoid opponent, only bigger and with a couple more abilities.
That's 2 feats (mounted combat & mounted archery) to reduce the first to -2 or -4...
There's also Stable Gallop which reduces the penalties by 2 to a minimum of 0. The best part? It's a feat for your mount, so it doesn't take up a feat on your character!
I noticed all of this shennanigans when we were playing serpents skull back when the samurai class was new... the Half orc ronin was silly effective, while he focused on his katana, he still had the bow and the mounted archer feat. so he got quick draw for free,
Firing his bow with the left hand, leaves right hand open for ammo draw or quick draw of the katana... so even the weakness of the bow (being rushed up upon by and meleer) didnt bother him, so he could ride about and plink at stuff or engage in melee seemlessly.
also serpents skull didnt seem to hamper his movement much, he had to leave the horse behind once, and the horse died once....
the samurai is really good at doing this trick.
There are a lot of penalties to using archery that must be offset by feats - -4 or -8 because of mount movement, up to -4 if firing into a melee, and -4 if your allies are blocking your line of fire.
That's 2 feats (mounted combat & mounted archery) to reduce the first to -2 or -4, 2 more feats (point blank shot & precise shot) to get rid of the firing into melee penalty, and another feat with a Dexterity 19 and BAB +11 requirement to get rid of the other -4.
5 feats, an ability score, and at least 11 levels - and you still have a -2 or -4 penalty for doing something that melee characters can't.
...and there are also the requirements of a combat trained mount and a little investment in skills that non-mounted characters don't need, or a huge investment in ride to be able to reliably control your untrained mount.
Edit to add: Also, area-effect fear effects having two chances at disabling you - one save for you, one save for the mount - is a pretty big risk to take where you might find yourself feeling fine as your mount panicks and starts fleeing at high speed.
Hm. This character is a ranger who rides his animal companion around, which does sacrifice animal companion attacks (but also tends to keep the animal companion out of harm's way). To be fair, AoE fear effects HAVE come into play more than once, although the PC can still get full iteratives as the mount runs away.
Goggles of Foefinding (MIC) cost 2500 gp and allow you to negate one of the -4 penalties you mention (cover). Not PF canon, but many DMs will allow 3.5 stuff.
True some, due but if a 3rd party addition is helping make the problem bigger, then maybe it is the 3rd party addition combined with the perceived problem, that is the actual problem.
That's 2 feats (mounted combat & mounted archery) to reduce the first to -2 or -4...There's also Stable Gallop which reduces the penalties by 2 to a minimum of 0. The best part? It's a feat for your mount, so it doesn't take up a feat on your character!Interesting feat, brings the minimum penalties down to -1 or -2.
Somewhat unrelated: I have always disliked feats being a standard part of the NPC and monster stat block.
why?
why?Basically boils down to me feeling that what good is added by monsters/NPCs being able to have feats could also have been added simply by giving those feats as special abilities... and that adding feats in general makes stat blocks more cluttered and space consuming than necessary, monsters more complex to feel like you are using properly (because the effects of feats, even ones that provide special options or powers, are not spelled out in the stat block), and process of customizing or building monsters that much more tricky.
To phrase it a bit more succinctly: I just don't like that a monster I might use a handful of times is nearly as complex as a character that someone could/has been playing for months
Having NPCs work more or less like PCs make them infinitely easier to build. If NPC had unique abilities as part of their stat block, they would necessitate special NPC building rules rather than simply using the existing rules.
Similarly, having monster HD work more or less like class HD makes it infinitely easier to add HD and class levels to monsters.
There are a lot of penalties to using archery that must be offset by feats - -4 or -8 because of mount movement, up to -4 if firing into a melee, and -4 if your allies are blocking your line of fire.
That's 2 feats (mounted combat & mounted archery) to reduce the first to -2 or -4, 2 more feats (point blank shot & precise shot) to get rid of the firing into melee penalty, and another feat with a Dexterity 19 and BAB +11 requirement to get rid of the other -4.
5 feats, an ability score, and at least 11 levels - and you still have a -2 or -4 penalty for doing something that melee characters can't.
...and there are also the requirements of a combat trained mount and a little investment in skills that non-mounted characters don't need, or a huge investment in ride to be able to reliably control your untrained mount.
Edit to add: Also, area-effect fear effects having two chances at disabling you - one save for you, one save for the mount - is a pretty big risk to take where you might find yourself feeling fine as your mount panicks and starts fleeing at high speed.
The bolded part isn't too much of a tax considering the power they get with it. Moving while at the same time attacking effectively with a full attack? The Beast Totem line for Barbarians might cost the same amount, and they get a very similar payload. Even with those 5 feats, what else are they going to spend them on that they can't already get? Iron Will, Weapon Focus, Favored Defense, Improved Initiative? Their PC can fit all of that in there, and have one more left over. Oh, and Rangers get Bonus Feats like Fighters (actually, somewhat better than Fighters), so it's not like the class doesn't account for the increased Feat Tax that comes with unorthodox combat styles.
You don't count an ability score increase since it's something the PC would do anyway, so it in no way counts as a tax if it's the way the PC was going to build anyway.
Levels take time and gameplay, this is true, but so do many of the other feats. The Critical Feat chains are a prime example of this. Several others include Dervish Dance feat, Thunder and Fang feat, etc. It's not like the PC can't function before they receive the big payload they work towards, but that they won't be at full capacity until they do.
In addition, monsters and encounters will be built on such a factor (considering the game itself isn't built on people being super-optimized). Let's not even talk about the TWF, Sword&Board, or even TWF Sword&Board taxes, which are a grace in comparison.
I am saying that NPCs could have Step 4 change from "always pick out a specific number of feats," to Step 4: Special Abilities "assign any special abilities other than those gained by race or class you think the character should have."
So, instead of "pick feats" they would have "pick things almost exactly the same as feats but definitely not feats?" I don't understand. I'm assuming there would be special ability analogs for all the common feats like Power Attack and Two Weapon Fighting, how is this any different?
[M]onsters could have Feats entire removed from Step 6: Skills and Feats and anything actually "needed" that is currently delivered to monster by feats (i.e. multiattack, awesome blow, and the like) be added in Step 8: Special Abilities and Qualities.
So if you added HD or levels to Monsters, you would likewise add "things almost exactly like feats but definitely not feats"... Still not seeing it.
The process of creating both would have the same or a smaller number of steps (since you wouldn't always give NPCs special abilities outside their class & race), and those steps would be no more complex than they already are - but I wouldn't have those moments where I am running an encounter and think "Oh yeah, Fire elementals get Spring Attack once they reach Large size... I should probably have them use that" or something to the same effect.
If you don't think Spring Attack fits with a Fire Elemental, don't give it Spring Attack. Give it a feat that more thematic to the creature.
Monsters and NPCs could be created much more quickly if they had less mandatory moving parts to them - despite that meaning a GM would need to reference a separate set of rules from the standard character creation rules (oh wait, that's already the case).
They'd have exactly the same number of moving parts, you simply subbed out "feats" with "special abilities" and instead of picking them off a "feat" list common to all characters you pick them off a "special ability" list common to all characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@nobledrake
If your advancing a monster and don't feel inclined to give it extra feats -- don't. It might make the monster a little easier, but other than that the impact should be minimal.
Similarly, if you don't want to worry about using Power Attack and Cleave when running a Hezrou -- don't. It might make the monster a little easier, but other than that the impact should be minimal.
The alternative is a Hezrou that still has Power Attack and Cleave (only they're abilities now, not feats) and you're still not inclined to utilize them. I can think of at least five ways this complicates the rules, and not a single way it simplifies them. I just don't get it.
As for not doing prep, use pregenerated monsters; don't make your own. If you make your own, you'll have to do prep, plain and simple. How does moving a monsters list of feats from "feats" to "special abilities" simplify prep? Or are you saying you'd rather monsters have fewer and less complicated abilities? 'Cause that's an entirely different argument.
I disagree, Steve.
Think of it this way:
As-is you have a step by step process of creating an NPC or Monster. In this case that's Step 4 for NPCs, and half of Step 6 for Monsters.
I am saying that NPCs could have Step 4 change from "always pick out a specific number of feats," to Step 4: Special Abilities "assign any special abilities other than those gained by race or class you think the character should have." and monsters could have Feats entire removed from Step 6: Skills and Feats and anything actually "needed" that is currently delivered to monster by feats (i.e. multiattack, awesome blow, and the like) be added in Step 8: Special Abilities and Qualities.
The process of creating both would have the same or a smaller number of steps (since you wouldn't always give NPCs special abilities outside their class & race), and those steps would be no more complex than they already are - but I wouldn't have those moments where I am running an encounter and think "Oh yeah, Fire elementals get Spring Attack once they reach Large size... I should probably have them use that" or something to the same effect.
Monsters and NPCs could be created much more quickly if they had less mandatory moving parts to them - despite that meaning a GM would need to reference a separate set of rules from the standard character creation rules (oh wait, that's already the case).
So basically your complaint is about what you can and can not remember?
If that is the case go ever the monsters/npc's before the session even begins. It will make remembering certain things a lot easier. I do better not having to reference two sets of rules. The reason I have not played a magus as an NPC is because I dont have the class memorized yet, but I guess the preference comes down to how one person is able to learn and remember vs another person.
|
Archery is categorically better than melee fighting in Pathfinder, some builds can compete, but most don't do it well unless you can pounce.
Anyways I really like the following home-brew nerfs.
Replace Manyshot with Improved Rapidshot(<-I made this up not from a sourcebook): No to-hit penalty when using Rapidshot.
Change the benefit of Improved Precise Shot(I hate this feat lol!) from ignoring all cover other than full cover and all concealment other than full concealment - to - ignoring the cover other than full cover created by friendly creatures and the concealment created by low light conditions.
Remove Improved and Greater Snap Shot.
Pathfinder is certainly playable as is, but the only melee that are going to consistently compete if you're npcs use logical tactics are pounce barbarians(with some way to fly) and eidolons.
Another idea is to give everybody deflect arrows it's a surprisingly easy feat to qualify for and can really level the playing field with dpr. It'll be pretty obvious that you're specifically picking on the one character though, so it's probably better to just talk with them about it.
Of course you can start using a lot of archery npcs, but if you start going archery on archery Pathfinder starts to feel like an artillery combat simulator hah.
|
There's a reason why horse archers conquered asia in the 13th century. It has been amply demonstrated that, conditions allowing, horse archers can grind down infantry. Giants count as infantry. Rough terrain goes to the infantry. Open terrain goes to the horse archers.
This PC is very effective for many situations. On a big wide open plain this PC could slay a whole pack of giants. Taking the fight to the enemy, inside the Giants' steading, where there's a chance of being grabbed, not so much.
So long as the PC is able to use horse archer tactics, victory is quite likely. Make sure to enforce things like ammunition, range, fatigue, et cetera.
The only effective counter I can see from a pack of giants so attacked is to take cover, force the horse archer to approach, and peg the mount with a lucky thrown rock.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The weapon system that beats missile cavalry is missile infantry, for a few different reasons. Missile infantry can make better use of cover and concealment. Missile infantry can typically make use of longer-range weapons (longbows vs. the shortbows that horse archers typically use).
In game, horse archers can use comp longbows just fine, so the second doesn't really apply. The first one still does, though. Your large mount will have a harder time negotiating dense terrain and getting cover.
Battlefield control castys will shut down and destroy the horse archer, though. Fog spells and wind spells negate his offense, spells like spike stones, stone call, entangle, and black tentacles shut down his mobility, and spells like solid fog, sleet storm, and walls do both. Once he can't move and can't shoot, he's done.
Sounds like your Zen Archer needs a mount, maybe with Flying?
Yes, but the same is true for the targets. The melee fighters meanwhile get the "fun" task of getting shot out until they close the gap (and then make 1 attack)!
Ooo and as a side benefit Mr. Flying Pony Archer is very hard for other people without bows or spells to target.
Yup! This Prime Target with no Cover things sounds much better than "useless guy charging an gun emplacement".
I currently have a ranger archer on a horse mount. He is extremely versatile and powerful in terms of damage and getting around the field. One of the other players whose in charge of the group calls me his "satellite" whenever there is a scouting inquiry or something needs to be. Hacked out ahead. "I launch my satellite and find out what happens when he returns."
|
The way I see it, Giants are massive. They are fast. They have long arms. While your halfling on a wolf is frolicking around, a pissed off group of giants can overrun the melee fighters and run down the halfling with a full run action, then when he tries to get away from them they get their attacks of opportunity, then if he does his double move away from the giants as a withdraw, the giants can then charge him down from that and beat his little ass into a pulp, or at least punt his wolf off a cliff. Sure it'll mean ignoring the other PCs and taking their licks from them, but combat 101 is to take out the biggest threat, and apparently this halfling is the biggest threat.
Do you ever use weather? It sucks to be an archer in the rain.
Rain: Rain reduces visibility ranges by half, resulting in a –4 penalty on Perception checks. It has the same effect on flames, ranged weapon attacks, and Perception checks as severe wind.
Severe Wind: In addition to automatically extinguishing any unprotected flames, winds of this magnitude cause protected flames (such as those of lanterns) to dance wildly and have a 50% chance of extinguishing these lights. Ranged weapon attacks and Perception checks are at a –4 penalty. This is the velocity of wind produced by a gust of wind spell.
This PC is very effective for many situations. On a big wide open plain this PC could slay a whole pack of giants. Taking the fight to the enemy, inside the Giants' steading, where there's a chance of being grabbed, not so much.
I'll add a few things that aren't really relevant to the original question (are ranged attackers generally better than melee attackers in PF).
First of all, this is an E8 campaign. At this time the players are level 8 with about 10 "epic" feats each.
Other characters are a gunslinger, a bard, an alchemist (specialized in bombs), and a cavalier. There are three cohorts (a monk, a druid, and a cleric).
The adventure is a d20 rehash of G2, the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. Much of the combat so far has been on the cliffside near the entrance, which is slippery and requires Acrobatics checks to remain standing (and if you fall, you need to make another check to avoid falling off the edge and down about 200').
So far, the main effective tactics of the party members have been:
Ranger: Optimized for fighting giants, running around on a wolf and shooting arrows.
Gunslinger: Enough said.
Bard: Gets a lot of mileage out of Grease, as giants are constricted and have not great Reflex saves
Alchemist: Fire bombs. These are FROST giants. Can throw multiple bombs per round.
Cavalier: Running up to soak damage.
Monk: Special mention to the monk cohort, who was built to trip giants (he is the cohort of the ranger). Hilariously trips giants on the ledge forcing Acrobatics saves that they usually miss, slipping off the ledge and plummeting down 200'.
So far the giants have not had much opportunity to do the obvious and Bull Rush the PCs off the ledge. A large part of this has been because of Grease spells.
I HAVE replaced a couple of giant feats (Improved Sunder was one of them) with better feats from 3.5 (Brutal Throw and Power Throw).
Brutal Throw in particular is a must-have for giants (it lets them use STR mod instead of DEX mod to hit with thrown weapons). Last combat the giants used it to great effect; they lost, but inflicted heavy damage on the PCs, knocking the ranger unconscious and killing his wolf.
They left the Glacial Rift after their first foray (the alchemist burned through his potions quickly, which is an issue for alchemists who can throw potions as iterative attacks) and returned a couple of days later to find some of the caverns they had previously cleared out to be re-stocked with alert giants and winter wolves, in addition to a falling rock trap positioned on a narrow part of the ledge (the ranger and his lupine mount, on point, fell victim to this).