Proposed Archery Debuff

[JAMRenaissance]

Hey guys,

Archery is far and above the most powerful method of ranged attack, and often is better than standard melee attack. Given that I am debuffing guns a bit in my campaign (they are all musket-type weapons, which practically means you can't shoot a single gun more often than every other round), I need to bring down archery just a touch. As a first go-round solution, I am considering saying that you can only use Feats to enhance one aspect of archery at a time: Damage, Fire Rate, or Accuracy. So you can use Rapid/Many Shot, but not at the same time as Deadly Aim or Precise Shot, as an example.
This doesn't feel like a harsh nerfing, but I would like to get some thoughts from outside of my campaign on bringing Archery more in line with other forms of combat.

[AwesomenessDog]

I would say just get rid of the feats that turn archery into a melee weapon with reach, it will make archers afraid of being approached with a ranged weapon out again and remove the rather odd 15 foot provoking radius.

[Cheburn]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Hey guys,

Archery is far and above the most powerful method of ranged attack, and often is better than standard melee attack. Given that I am debuffing guns a bit in my campaign (they are all musket-type weapons, which practically means you can't shoot a single gun more often than every other round), I need to bring down archery just a touch. As a first go-round solution, I am considering saying that you can only use Feats to enhance one aspect of archery at a time: Damage, Fire Rate, or Accuracy. So you can use Rapid/Many Shot, but not at the same time as Deadly Aim or Precise Shot, as an example.
This doesn't feel like a harsh nerfing, but I would like to get some thoughts from outside of my campaign on bringing Archery more in line with other forms of combat.

As an initial consideration, remember that it's not the archer's fault if your primary melee combatants don't have some way of attacking at range for flying or distant opponents.

Rigorously enforcing cover, soft cover (from interposing bodies), and firing into melee penalties will help. Set up tactical battlefields with walls or rocks that your enemies can use for cover. Occasionally employ inclement weather (rain will give a -4 penalty to ranged attack rolls). Don't forget that archers provoke AoOs if they're firing while in melee range (unless they have Point Blank Mastery). Keep track of ammunition. All of these suggestions are currently in the rules and do not need house ruling.

Finally, if you have some archers, make sure you occasionally put in situations where ranged attacks are particularly useful.

I also advise using the Unchained action economy to buff melee combatants (it has a lesser effect on ranged characters).

I really feel that your proposed action is too big of a nerf to archers.

[JAMRenaissance]

Cheburn wrote:

As an initial consideration, remember that it's not the archer's fault if your primary melee combatants don't have some way of attacking at range for flying or distant opponents.

Rigorously enforcing cover, soft cover (from interposing bodies), and firing into melee penalties will help. Set up tactical battlefields with walls or rocks that your enemies can use for cover. Occasionally employ inclement weather (rain will give a -4 penalty to ranged attack rolls). Don't forget that archers provoke AoOs if they're firing while in melee range (unless they have Point Blank Mastery). Keep track of ammunition. All of these suggestions are currently in the rules and do not need house ruling.

Finally, if you have some archers, make sure you occasionally put in situations where ranged attacks are particularly useful.

I also advise using the Unchained action economy to buff melee combatants (it has a lesser effect on ranged characters).

I really feel that your proposed action is too big of a nerf to archers.

While I appreciate alternate ideas, I'm much more interested in knowing why you view this as too large of a nerf, particularly in light of the comparison made to other ranged attacks (i.e. guns shoot every other round max, and crossbows... well, are crossbows). Everything you listed applies to EVERY ranged attack, so I don't see how this addresses the comparative level of power of archery.

What is it about this nerf that would bring archery down beyond the things that it is comparable to?

[AwesomenessDog]

Cheburn wrote:

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Hey guys,

Archery is far and above the most powerful method of ranged attack, and often is better than standard melee attack. Given that I am debuffing guns a bit in my campaign (they are all musket-type weapons, which practically means you can't shoot a single gun more often than every other round), I need to bring down archery just a touch. As a first go-round solution, I am considering saying that you can only use Feats to enhance one aspect of archery at a time: Damage, Fire Rate, or Accuracy. So you can use Rapid/Many Shot, but not at the same time as Deadly Aim or Precise Shot, as an example.
This doesn't feel like a harsh nerfing, but I would like to get some thoughts from outside of my campaign on bringing Archery more in line with other forms of combat.

As an initial consideration, remember that it's not the archer's fault if your primary melee combatants don't have some way of attacking at range for flying or distant opponents.

Rigorously enforcing cover, soft cover (from interposing bodies), and firing into melee penalties will help. Set up tactical battlefields with walls or rocks that your enemies can use for cover. Occasionally employ inclement weather (rain will give a -4 penalty to ranged attack rolls). Don't forget that archers provoke AoOs if they're firing while in melee range (unless they have Point Blank Mastery). Keep track of ammunition. All of these suggestions are currently in the rules and do not need house ruling.

Finally, if you have some archers, make sure you occasionally put in situations where ranged attacks are particularly useful.

I also advise using the Unchained action economy to buff melee combatants (it has a lesser effect on ranged characters).

I really feel that your proposed action is too big of a nerf to archers.

Also something everyone likes to forget is that firing past your teammates is already a -4 assuming you don't have precise shot as well as another -4 for the target having soft cover:

A=Archer
M=Friendly Melee
E=Enemy Melee
_=empty 5ft space
AME gets the -4 to cover since E is right next to M and on the opposite side of M to A.
AM_E Does not get the -4 due to the two threatening each other, but since you cannot draw a straight line corner to corner from A to E that does not pass through M, M is still providing soft cover both ways. If E was 5ft to the left or right of AM then M would not provide cover.

[Cheburn]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Cheburn wrote:

As an initial consideration, remember that it's not the archer's fault if your primary melee combatants don't have some way of attacking at range for flying or distant opponents.

Rigorously enforcing cover, soft cover (from interposing bodies), and firing into melee penalties will help. Set up tactical battlefields with walls or rocks that your enemies can use for cover. Occasionally employ inclement weather (rain will give a -4 penalty to ranged attack rolls). Don't forget that archers provoke AoOs if they're firing while in melee range (unless they have Point Blank Mastery). Keep track of ammunition. All of these suggestions are currently in the rules and do not need house ruling.

Finally, if you have some archers, make sure you occasionally put in situations where ranged attacks are particularly useful.

I also advise using the Unchained action economy to buff melee combatants (it has a lesser effect on ranged characters).

I really feel that your proposed action is too big of a nerf to archers.

While I appreciate alternate ideas, I'm much more interested in knowing why you view this as too large of a nerf, particularly in light of the comparison made to other ranged attacks (i.e. guns shoot every other round max, and crossbows... well, are crossbows). Everything you listed applies to EVERY ranged attack, so I don't see how this addresses the comparative level of power of archery.

What is it about this nerf that would bring archery down beyond the things that it is comparable to?

If I were going that direction, I would buff crossbows and guns to archery's level. I don't feel ranged attacks are overpowered compared to melee if you rule them as written (archers in a dungeon corridor shooting past your melee and you've got a -8 to hit unless you've invested in feats to bump it up) and use the Unchained action economy system which aids melee more than ranged.

[Charlie Bell]

The simplest archery nerf, which puts it more in line with melee, is to ban Rapid Shot and Manyshot. Archers will still put out great damage, especially when you consider that they don't generally need to move to change targets.

[JAMRenaissance]

Cheburn wrote:

If I were going that direction, I would buff crossbows and guns to archery's level. I don't feel ranged attacks are overpowered compared to melee if you rule them as written (archers in a dungeon corridor shooting past your melee and you've got a -8 to hit unless you've invested in feats to bump it up) and use the Unchained action economy system which aids melee more than ranged.

So should Kineticist blasts be upgraded as well? Shuriken too?

I think the general idea on these forums are to not nerf anything, but buff everything up the the highest level. I can not see how it is easier or more desirable to try to raise everything up if there is a single clear thing that is better than everything else. It simply seems to make more intuitive sense to debuff the one clear option rather than trying to raise up a bunch of different things.

Honestly, I can NOT see "only enhance one direction at a time" as a tremendous debuff. That's what I'm really curious about - why does this reduce archery THAT far?

[JAMRenaissance]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Cheburn wrote:

If I were going that direction, I would buff crossbows and guns to archery's level. I don't feel ranged attacks are overpowered compared to melee if you rule them as written (archers in a dungeon corridor shooting past your melee and you've got a -8 to hit unless you've invested in feats to bump it up) and use the Unchained action economy system which aids melee more than ranged.

So should Kineticist blasts be upgraded as well? Shuriken too?

I think the general idea on these forums are to not nerf anything, but buff everything up the the highest level. I can not see how it is easier or more desirable to try to raise everything up if there is a single clear thing that is better than everything else. It simply seems to make more intuitive sense to debuff the one clear option rather than trying to raise up a bunch of different things.

Honestly, I can NOT see "only enhance one direction at a time" as a tremendous debuff. That's what I'm really curious about - why does this reduce archery THAT far?

Charlie Bell wrote:

The simplest archery nerf, which puts it more in line with melee, is to ban Rapid Shot and Manyshot. Archers will still put out great damage, especially when you consider that they don't generally need to move to change targets.

That actually seems fairly innocuous and simple.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

If you debuff archery to this degree it is likely that people will simply select not to play an archer. Psychologically, people are never interested in playing characters that are nerfed, particular where, as people have pointed out, a lot of archers are starting at -8 to attack. Almost no reason to not play a caster in this system. Archery isn't so powerful that it needs to be reigned in. Instead of asking why your arbitrary debuff is not good, ask why it is necessary; everyone serves a different role in a party and a strong archer is basically a one note character. Debuffing archery is going to make far fewer people want to play archers and enhance the game for no one.

I mean heck, one casting of fickle winds and archers are completely invalidate.

[Cheburn]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Cheburn wrote:

If I were going that direction, I would buff crossbows and guns to archery's level. I don't feel ranged attacks are overpowered compared to melee if you rule them as written (archers in a dungeon corridor shooting past your melee and you've got a -8 to hit unless you've invested in feats to bump it up) and use the Unchained action economy system which aids melee more than ranged.

So should Kineticist blasts be upgraded as well? Shuriken too?

I think the general idea on these forums are to not nerf anything, but buff everything up the the highest level. I can not see how it is easier or more desirable to try to raise everything up if there is a single clear thing that is better than everything else. It simply seems to make more intuitive sense to debuff the one clear option rather than trying to raise up a bunch of different things.

Honestly, I can NOT see "only enhance one direction at a time" as a tremendous debuff. That's what I'm really curious about - why does this reduce archery THAT far?

I don't have time right now to really math it out for you, but it comes out of damage per round calculations. If you're fighting a CR appropriate enemy and have a melee in the way of it, you will HAVE to take the "remove soft cover and melee penalties," because there's no way you can tolerate the -8 to hit penalty. The end result is you're going to do maybe 20 damage per round at level 10-12 in that scenario, which is really, really unacceptable. I've seen Barbarians routinely deal close to that (2d6 + 11) in a decent round at level 2. It's only the combination of extra attacks and extra damage per attack that boost archery up to reasonable output. Its actual advantage over melee is the action economy and not having to move to attack, not so much the damage it puts up. Firearms are a bit of a special case, because of being able to target Touch AC.

[Crimeo]

I know it's been mentioned, but I don't see you actually confirming whether you are already enforcing all of the rules for concealment, cover, soft cover, melee penalty, etc. Are you? If you are and still find archery way overpowered, I would be very surprised.

Quote:

crossbows

are mainly designed as low skill grunt/backup weapons, like in real life. They aren't supposed to reach a pinnacle of amazing effectiveness, I think this is fine.

Quote:

guns

never played with them, don't like the flavor. From what I hear though, their power level is commensurate with bows after very early levels.

[AwesomenessDog]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Cheburn wrote:

If I were going that direction, I would buff crossbows and guns to archery's level. I don't feel ranged attacks are overpowered compared to melee if you rule them as written (archers in a dungeon corridor shooting past your melee and you've got a -8 to hit unless you've invested in feats to bump it up) and use the Unchained action economy system which aids melee more than ranged.

So should Kineticist blasts be upgraded as well? Shuriken too?

I think the general idea on these forums are to not nerf anything, but buff everything up the the highest level. I can not see how it is easier or more desirable to try to raise everything up if there is a single clear thing that is better than everything else. It simply seems to make more intuitive sense to debuff the one clear option rather than trying to raise up a bunch of different things.

Honestly, I can NOT see "only enhance one direction at a time" as a tremendous debuff. That's what I'm really curious about - why does this reduce archery THAT far?

Personally I haven't toyed with Kineticist yet but if it is a weak as people say it is, then yes it should be bumped up. And for shurikens, the only class that really uses them outside of flavor reason is ninja which a shuriken build is already ridiculous so I would argue it exceeds archery there.

[Charlie Bell]

Cheburn wrote:

It's only the combination of extra attacks and extra damage per attack that boost archery up to reasonable output. Its actual advantage over melee is the action economy and not having to move to attack, not so much the damage it puts up.

This. Archery by itself is good, primarily because of the action economy issue. But when combined with per-attack damage buffs, archery becomes amazing, because archery involves making lots of attacks using Rapid Shot and Manyshot, effectively letting you multiply all those damage buffs by the additional attacks.

(I do agree with Create Mr. Pitt, though, in that I personally would not nerf archery. I have considered fundamentally redesigning it, something along the lines of Vital Strike, where you don't increase damage by making lots of attacks but rather by making one really good attack per round. But I haven't put any consistent thought along those lines, and it would take some really fundamental level mechanical thinking to balance it right.)

But, if you wanted to nerf it, a simple RS/Manyshot ban will reduce the power of multiplicative damage buffs, while not radically tinkering with things like cover/shooting into melee penalties or action economy.

Enforcing quiver and arrow accounting also reins in archers, but is super un-fun. Only 20 arrows go in a normal quiver. By 6th-7th level, that's 4 full attacks, 5 if you're not hasted. Assuming you can't wear more than a single quiver at a time (which afaik there's no such restriction in the rules, but it's a reasonable GM ruling), you need to stop and get out a new quiver every so often. And if you need to switch to special material (cold iron, etc.) arrows, that means you have to stop and get out a different quiver.

[AwesomenessDog]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Enforcing quiver and arrow accounting also reins in archers, but is super un-fun. Only 20 arrows go in a normal quiver. By 6th-7th level, that's 4 full attacks, 5 if you're not hasted. Assuming you can't wear more than a single quiver at a time (which afaik there's no such restriction in the rules, but it's a reasonable GM ruling), you need to stop and get out a new quiver every so often. And if you need to switch to special material (cold iron, etc.) arrows, that means you have to stop and get out a different quiver.

Most characters that are high enough level to have some sort of smart quiver (I've seen gms who let people take Rapid Reload (handy haversack) to use one as a quiver). Its also not uncommon for people in real life to have multiple quivers slung, especially in hunting as different tips were used for different game, so I would recommend allowing up to three quivers on a body at a time (also if you are using magic arrows that often, you're getting scammed) without even pushing into things like wrist/leg sheaths that can hold 5 arrows each. And it would only be an effective full round action to change quivers as is do who fires 60 arrows a encounter anyway?

[HellHunter]

Crimeo wrote:

I know it's been mentioned, but I don't see you actually confirming whether you are already enforcing all of the rules for concealment, cover, soft cover, melee penalty, etc. Are you? If you are and still find archery way overpowered, I would be very surprised.

Quote:

crossbows

are mainly designed as low skill grunt/backup weapons, like in real life. They aren't supposed to reach a pinnacle of amazing effectiveness, I think this is fine.

Quote:

guns

never played with them, don't like the flavor. From what I hear though, their power level is commensurate with bows after very early levels.

Crossbows add tons of flavor, and are almost viable through a very few select archetypes (Bolt Ace, for one). It doesn't make sense that to be as proficient as a bow-user with the easiest-to-use ranged weapon ever designed, you need to specialize 11+ levels of feats and a single niche archetype so deeply to get there. It's a shame the crossbow requires a "free" hand to load, despite being able to be fired in one hand. Dual-wielding capabilities without such an insane demand for feats would put them on-par fairly well with the bow.

Firearms are still worse than bows, albeit the gunslinger and associated archetypes are quite good to make them very usable. I don't like the flavor, either, but I'd argue their balance is quite fair.

Archery has always been dominant of the ranged combat options, and it's a shame that everything good regarding ranged combat favors the bow exclusively. Is it overpowered and needs nerfing, though? I certainly don't think so.

I can make a bloodrager deal 100+ non-critical damage per turn with full attacks while simultaneously getting 100 ft charges with a 15 foot melee range at level 8 all in the same turn with no third party abilities, with no magic or masterwork gear, yet can't even come close to that with any ranged build near those levels.

From a stats and design perspective, ranged, while late-game proving very strong in the open field, is the least-useful style of combat to use overall, especially when playing properly with concealment rules, and more so if the DM is smart about magical items and ammunition. If it's a problem, the DM should cut down on magical ammunition accessibility, and seriously needs to work on his encounter designs; I know I personally make my dungeons/interiors very difficult for casters and archers, as I make non-room corridors only 5-10 ft wide, and usually force 90 degree or tighter turns every 30 feet or so, set up ganks against targets at the back of the group triggered by traps, noise, or just differences in altitude such as leaping from the ceiling or balconies. Further, I also suggest providing plenty of cover for enemies, giving them concealment-gaining abilities, natural resistance to piercing damage through magic or other effects, or steep ramps or staircases which block line of sight and prevent safe shooting into the fray. Of course, it doesn't settle the issues with the disparity between bows and other forms of ranged combat, but it does hinder them, which I'll get to in a moment.

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

Archery isn't so much powerful as it is the rest of the ranged options are blatantly terrible, notably crossbows. I proposed a Hunter archetype recently that aimed to help improve the flavor and viability of the weapon while allowing it to keep in "skirmishing" range for optimal potency to keep it synergizing with other classes' abilities while being vulnerable to certain opposing styles of combat, all while being competitive with fairly-optimized builds of other classes.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2syi0?SuggestionHunter-ArchetypeCrossbow-Viabil ity

As such, just nerfing archery seems rather unfair as then it puts it on the level of the crossbow, which is rather useless as mentioned above. I'd instead prefer to see buffs across the board exclusive to crossbows and perhaps slightly to guns (depending) or the removal of exclusivity of ranged feats, and then just more general use of counter-playing ranged and magic users at the DM's discretion using existing systems, also as mentioned. At my table, I'm usually the only player who ever deals with ranged, and each of us DM differently when we rotate, but typically I allow Crossbow Mastery as a feat with no prerequisite, do not follow the weapon cord's recent errata for crossbow users/allow rigging of repeating crossbows to not need a free hand, and lastly make enchanted ammunition extremely rare for the sake of Manyshot being only available on the bow, and rather put such effects in swift-action-usable enchantments which apply to the next piece of ammunition used or attack made as to promote more flavorful play options.

[alexd1976]

If you feel that you need to balance things, and are now looking at archery, I would like to know how you reduced spellcasting to put it in line with melee Fighters...

[Casual Viking]

Get rid of Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot and Manyshot.

[Melkiador]

alexd1976 wrote:

If you feel that you need to balance things, and are now looking at archery, I would like to know how you reduced spellcasting to put it in line with melee Fighters...

There are plenty of threads about that. The most common idea is to ban 7th-9th level spells.

As for an archery nerf, I like reducing precise shot where instead of negating the penalty for firing into melee, it only reduces it by 2. This has the nice side effect of not making you feel like you have to get precise shot as soon as possible on your ranged build.

[JAMRenaissance]

HellHunter wrote:

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

I'm starting at level 10, and ending around level 14.

There seems to be an incredible resistance to the thought of nerfing anything. To that I say... I'm not your GM. The reaction seems personal: "OMG... you're killing DPR and NO ONE WILLZ EVER SHOOT A BOW AGAIN!!!"

Chill. There's nothing that will kill a game by getting rid of Rapid Shot. If that is a big, huge deal then I question if you're playing for fun or playing for plusses.

alexd1976 wrote:

If you feel that you need to balance things, and are now looking at archery, I would like to know how you reduced spellcasting to put it in line with melee Fighters...

Dude... that's not a short discussion. :) Broadstroke summary: The Wizard, Cleric, Witch, and Summoner classes are gone in my campaign. Teleportation is dangerous for anything that isn't short range, which also nerfs most summoning (whatever you summon has to be native to the environment). There are no metamagic items. Finally, I'm planning on implementing the Wound Threshold system, which DEFINITELY hits spellcasters more than martials.

[Vanykrye]

If I were a player in your campaign wanting to use a bow and you presented that house rule "to bring it in line with other ranged attacks", I'd have to question it, and yes, I'd probably look at playing some other style of character.

Logically speaking, if an archer can only use one set of feats at a time (accuracy v damage v rate of fire), it wouldn't make any sense for that ruling to not also apply to crossbows and guns.

If you are applying the rule across the board then you aren't nerfing archery, you're nerfing all ranged weapon combat. Then, as a player, I'd be asking how it affecting other ranged attacks as well (is Point Blank Shot an accuracy feat or damage feat and can I combine it with Precise Shot when firing my Scorching Ray?).

If you aren't applying that rule across the board, and only nerfing bows, then I not only wouldn't want to bother with it but I'd be more on guard for other rules that are inconsistent.

[JAMRenaissance]

Vanykrye wrote:

If you aren't applying that rule across the board, and only nerfing bows, then I not only wouldn't want to bother with it but I'd be more on guard for other rules that are inconsistent.

I'm actually probably only removing Rapid Shot (and, as a result, ManyShot) from the game. It is much more elegant of a solution, and pulls off the slight-lowering that I was shooting for.

With that in mind, there's lots of rules changes that I am implementing. I'm a bit older, from the pre-PFS school of thought, and all rules are optional in my book. Any rule modifications are told up front to the players - I've already mentioned that I'm looking to lower some of the effectiveness of the bow as compared to other ranged attacks.

Again, though... if removing Rapid/Manyshot by itself is enough to make you go in another direction I question how much the direction is what works for the idea of the character versus how much we're looking at The Thing With The Most Plusses.

[Claxon]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

I'm starting at level 10, and ending around level 14.

There seems to be an incredible resistance to the thought of nerfing anything. To that I say... I'm not your GM. The reaction seems personal: "OMG... you're killing DPR and NO ONE WILLZ EVER SHOOT A BOW AGAIN!!!"

Chill. There's nothing that will kill a game by getting rid of Rapid Shot. If that is a big, huge deal then I question if you're playing for fun or playing for plusses.

alexd1976 wrote:

If you feel that you need to balance things, and are now looking at archery, I would like to know how you reduced spellcasting to put it in line with melee Fighters...

Dude... that's not a short discussion. :) Broadstroke summary: The Wizard, Cleric, Witch, and Summoner classes are gone in my campaign. Teleportation is dangerous for anything that isn't short range, which also nerfs most summoning (whatever you summon has to be native to the environment). There are no metamagic items. Finally, I'm planning on implementing the Wound Threshold system, which DEFINITELY hits spellcasters more than martials.

With all the changes that you're making to the game, why not just play E6. Have participated in your previous thread about guns, your changes to mechanics are not really balancing or enhancing of game play.

The nerf to guns is too hard in the name of "realism". Realism in a game with magic and dragons.

While I will agree that archery is good, your proposed changes to it would simply make it a back up tool because it would no longer be strong enough to be a primary damage dealing method. Oh, and for what it's worth a standard action arrow attack is never ever ever going to beat what a similarly spec'd melee fighter could do in a single attack.

If you really want to give archers a hard time force them to move so they can't make multiple attacks. The quickest way to destroy an archers damage is to deny them a full attack.

[alexd1976]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

I'm starting at level 10, and ending around level 14.

There seems to be an incredible resistance to the thought of nerfing anything. To that I say... I'm not your GM. The reaction seems personal: "OMG... you're killing DPR and NO ONE WILLZ EVER SHOOT A BOW AGAIN!!!"

Chill. There's nothing that will kill a game by getting rid of Rapid Shot. If that is a big, huge deal then I question if you're playing for fun or playing for plusses.

alexd1976 wrote:

If you feel that you need to balance things, and are now looking at archery, I would like to know how you reduced spellcasting to put it in line with melee Fighters...

Dude... that's not a short discussion. :) Broadstroke summary: The Wizard, Cleric, Witch, and Summoner classes are gone in my campaign. Teleportation is dangerous for anything that isn't short range, which also nerfs most summoning (whatever you summon has to be native to the environment). There are no metamagic items. Finally, I'm planning on implementing the Wound Threshold system, which DEFINITELY hits spellcasters more than martials.

Having never seen it in play, I can't comment on it... (the wound threshold system, I mean)-looks pretty neat though.

As for a good nerf for ranged... I dunno, I never thought they were a problem as much as casters are.

Maybe reduce ROF on them, eliminate Rapid Shot/Multishot.

That's probably the easiest thing to do.

[ckdragons]

It was brought up earlier in the conversation that you can enforce in-combat penalties to the archer, such as soft cover, partial cover, firing into melee. However, the basic "archer-required" feats negate these penalties as early as 6th level (Ranger bonus feats) with Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot. After getting IPS, my group refers to the archers shooting "magic missile arrows". Even DR is not an obstacle with Clustered Shots.

I do like the idea of reducing the effectiveness of the archery feats (1/2 any penalties instead of negating).

What is the feat that provides an archer with a 15 ft threatened radius?

[alexd1976]

Snap Shot/Improved Snap shot

[JAMRenaissance]

Claxon wrote:

With all the changes that you're making to the game, why not just play E6. Have participated in your previous thread about guns, your changes to mechanics are not really balancing or enhancing of game play.

The nerf to guns is too hard in the name of...

*Imagine a squinched up face and shruggled shoulders as you read the next part...*

Weeeeellll... the nerf to guns isn't in the name of "realism". I'm inheriting a world that a friend of mine who is a much, MUCH better world creator than I am created. The original campaign was core-only, with houseruled alchemy and guns. In that scenario, the guns were every-other-round items, but they also hit harder (2d6 base damage) and were always touch AC (though with a 10' range increment). The idea was that they would be closer to muskets in execution - shoot once, and either play stabby-stab with a bayonet or pull out your "real weapon". So I came in, added a bunch of books, then retrofitted some stuff (alchemy and guns specifically, in this context) to merge the old campaign material with all of the new rules from the books. The flavor of the idea was so nice that I didn't want to totally toss it.

I also don't remember posting about gun changes, because I really didn't need feedback for it. Heck... the modifications to archery were my "I'm at the end, this is one of the last things that bother me" changes. Implementing universe-specific changes, such as the difficulty with crossing dimensions, and dropping prepared spellcasting were much more important.

Despite how it may seem here, I don't feel super-strongly about archery mods, which is why it was one of the last things I've wanted to adjust. Heck... if my players felt strongly, and the one I'm thinking of specifically gave the right puppy dog eyes, I'd be like "Eh... no problem. Not THAT big of a deal".

I simply don't see how dropping one aspect/Feat (Rapid Shot and its brethren) is that big of a deal, and the impression I'm seeing here is that I'm breaking the theory of relativity in saying you can't get off extra arrows. THAT, I believe, is at least worthy of discussing with a listening ear to get a bunch of new perspectives. I like learning the theory from you guys.

One quick note, though - wouldn't a direct comparison between melee dpr and ranged dpr be intriniscally unfair to the melee dpr person since you're AT RANGE in the latter scenario. I view distance as being intrinisically advantageous. As such, if the dpr is equal, range actually has an advantage.

[alexd1976]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Claxon wrote:

With all the changes that you're making to the game, why not just play E6. Have participated in your previous thread about guns, your changes to mechanics are not really balancing or enhancing of game play.

The nerf to guns is too hard in the name of...

*Imagine a squinched up face and shruggled shoulders as you read the next part...*

Weeeeellll... the nerf to guns isn't in the name of "realism". I'm inheriting a world that a friend of mine who is a much, MUCH better world creator than I am created. The original campaign was core-only, with houseruled alchemy and guns. In that scenario, the guns were every-other-round items, but they also hit harder (2d6 base damage) and were always touch AC (though with a 10' range increment). The idea was that they would be closer to muskets in execution - shoot once, and either play stabby-stab with a bayonet or pull out your "real weapon". So I came in, added a bunch of books, then retrofitted some stuff (alchemy and guns specifically, in this context) to merge the old campaign material with all of the new rules from the books. The flavor of the idea was so nice that I didn't want to totally toss it.

I also don't remember posting about gun changes, because I really didn't need feedback for it. Heck... the modifications to archery were my "I'm at the end, this is one of the last things that bother me" changes. Implementing universe-specific changes, such as the difficulty with crossing dimensions, and dropping prepared spellcasting were much more important.

Despite how it may seem here, I don't feel super-strongly about archery mods, which is why it was one of the last things I've wanted to adjust. Heck... if my players felt strongly, and the one I'm thinking of specifically gave the right puppy dog eyes, I'd be like "Eh... no problem. Not THAT big of a deal".

I simply don't see how dropping one aspect/Feat (Rapid Shot and its brethren) is that big of a deal, and the impression I'm seeing here is that I'm breaking the...

To be fair, melee characters don't need DEX the way archers do. So archers damage is affect by STR, accuracy by DEX, and HP by CON.

Melee characters "only" needs STR and CON really (I mean, even the best full plate made of mithril only allows +3 DEX bonus to AC).

If I was going to alter anything about archery, it would be the rate of fire.

You can fire FOUR arrows in a single round by level 6.

My two cents.

[ckdragons]

alexd1976 wrote:

Snap Shot/Improved Snap shot

Thank you, though I calculate that to only 10 ft of threatened squares.

[alexd1976]

ckdragons wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Snap Shot/Improved Snap shot

Thank you, though I calculate that to only 10 ft of threatened squares.

It used to be 5+10, apparently it has changed... yes, now 5+5=10ft threatened.

Still worth taking, if allowed. :D

[ckdragons]

alexd1976 wrote:

If I was going to alter anything about archery, it would be the rate of fire.
You can fire FOUR arrows in a single round by level 6.

In our group, we removed Manyshot and replaced it with Improved Rapid Shot and Greater Rapid Shot. These new feats work in the same manner as 2-weapon fighting style, except for archery.

Improved Rapid Shot: Dex 17, Rapid Shot, BAB +6. When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round with a -5 penalty. This stacks with the additional attack and penalty from Rapid Shot. This feat may be selected as a bonus feat for appropriate classes at 6th level.

Greater Rapid Shot: Dex 19, Improved Rapid Shot, BAB +11. When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round with a -10 penalty. This stacks with the additional attacks and penalties from Rapid Shot and Improved Rapid Shot. This feat may be selected as a bonus feat for appropriate classes at 10th level.

Effectively, a 6th-level archer would still take 4 shots with Rapid Shot but at the 2-weapon penalties (-2/-2/-7/-7).

[Vanykrye]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Vanykrye wrote:

If you aren't applying that rule across the board, and only nerfing bows, then I not only wouldn't want to bother with it but I'd be more on guard for other rules that are inconsistent.

I'm actually probably only removing Rapid Shot (and, as a result, ManyShot) from the game. It is much more elegant of a solution, and pulls off the slight-lowering that I was shooting for.

With that in mind, there's lots of rules changes that I am implementing. I'm a bit older, from the pre-PFS school of thought, and all rules are optional in my book. Any rule modifications are told up front to the players - I've already mentioned that I'm looking to lower some of the effectiveness of the bow as compared to other ranged attacks.

Again, though... if removing Rapid/Manyshot by itself is enough to make you go in another direction I question how much the direction is what works for the idea of the character versus how much we're looking at The Thing With The Most Plusses.

I'm not a PFS DM/Player, and I agree with the idea that all rules can be changed. My concern with house rules is ripple effect - what else does the rule change effect? Removing Rapid Shot and Manyshot in and of itself would not make me move away from an archer character, but taking away Rapid Shot also affects thrown weapons, and that's perhaps a bit harsh on anyone wanting to do that since they already require Quick Draw just to make a full attack (unless you're house ruling that out as well).

[Claxon]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Weeeeellll... the nerf to guns isn't in the name of "realism". I'm inheriting a world that a friend of mine who is a much, MUCH better world creator than I am created. The original campaign was core-only, with houseruled alchemy and guns. In that scenario, the guns were every-other-round items, but they also hit harder (2d6 base damage) and were always touch AC (though with a 10' range increment). The idea was that they would be closer to muskets in execution - shoot once, and either play stabby-stab with a bayonet or pull out your "real weapon". So I came in, added a bunch of books, then retrofitted some stuff (alchemy and guns specifically, in this context) to merge the old campaign material with all of the new rules from the books. The flavor of the idea was so nice that I didn't want to totally toss it.

I also don't remember posting about gun changes, because I really didn't need feedback for it. Heck... the modifications to archery were my "I'm at the end, this is one of the last things that bother me" changes. Implementing universe-specific changes, such as the difficulty with crossing dimensions, and dropping prepared spellcasting were much more important.

Despite how it may seem here, I don't feel super-strongly about archery mods, which is why it was one of the last things I've wanted to adjust. Heck... if my players felt strongly, and the one I'm thinking of specifically gave the right puppy dog eyes, I'd be like "Eh... no problem. Not THAT big of a deal".

I simply don't see how dropping one aspect/Feat (Rapid Shot and its brethren) is that big of a deal, and the impression I'm seeing here is that I'm breaking the...

You know what, my bad. I actually confused someone else' thread for gun advice and thought this was another thread asking for continued advice.

[Abrisene]

Have one quiver equipped at a time.
Each quiver has 20 arrows, weighs 3 lbs.
When the quiver runs out, use a Move Action to retrieve the next quiver, which provokes for Retrieve a Stowed Item.
If generous, have the quivers replaced during the Retrieve.
If not, have a Move to remove empty quiver, Move to Retrieve, then a Move to don the new quiver.

Force your archers to rely on scouting in order to stash quivers in tactical locations, such as fall-back points.

Trying to play a dedicated arrow turret should not be feasible without a +2 Endless Ammunition enchant, whereas managing weight and the Action economy of quiver rotation is intrinsic to the archer experience.

Roll or otherwise determine weather.
Random Weather
Almost 20% of the time, weather should be modifying play; mostly to the detriment of ranged attacks.

[Guru-Meditation]

Charlie Bell wrote:

The simplest archery nerf, which puts it more in line with melee, is to ban Rapid Shot and Manyshot. Archers will still put out great damage, especially when you consider that they don't generally need to move to change targets.

This puts their extreme amount of Arrows-shot-per-Round (aka the melee attack equivalent) to the level of other combatants. And it is not too hard a nerf as it frees up two feats for the archer, instead of strictly making stuff they had, and used effort to get, worse.

[Cheburn]

Guru-Meditation wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

The simplest archery nerf, which puts it more in line with melee, is to ban Rapid Shot and Manyshot. Archers will still put out great damage, especially when you consider that they don't generally need to move to change targets.

This puts their extreme amount of Arrows-shot-per-Round (aka the melee attack equivalent) to the level of other combatants. And it is not too hard a nerf as it frees up two feats for the archer, instead of strictly making stuff they had, and used effort to get, worse.

It depends somewhat on the AC of your opponent, but assuming you're not in a super low accuracy case (e.g., hitting only on a 19 or 20) banning Manyshot and Rapid Shot is a not at all a minor nerf. In a typical case, you'll lose around 40% of the damage an archer typically does. Maybe that's what you're going for. But it's not "minor" in the least.

[HellHunter]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

I'm starting at level 10, and ending around level 14.

There seems to be an incredible resistance to the thought of nerfing anything. To that I say... I'm not your GM. The reaction seems personal: "OMG... you're killing DPR and NO ONE WILLZ EVER SHOOT A BOW AGAIN!!!"

Chill. There's nothing that will kill a game by getting rid of Rapid Shot. If that is a big, huge deal then I question if you're playing for fun or playing for plusses.

The resistance is there pretty much because you're asking for feedback from a balance perspective. When you ask for this kind of feedback, you will get responses regarding the actual game balance rather than flavor. It's at your discretion to make the rules for flavor; you can add or remove anything from your campaign if you so please, and none of us are to judge. But because you're asking for feedback about balance, the game now becomes entirely about the mechanics and "playing for plusses" rather than fun. I'd also like to point out that usually these go hand in hand, especially in the case of those who like to play DPS; if the player feels like he is inadequate or are not contributing to a certain level, odds are he isn't going to be having as much fun as he could be.

Simply, the nerfs seem over-aggressive, and may minimize the desire to want to play an archer to begin with based upon low contribution. There's a reason nobody mains crossbows.

[Guru-Meditation]

Cheburn wrote:

Guru-Meditation wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

The simplest archery nerf, which puts it more in line with melee, is to ban Rapid Shot and Manyshot. Archers will still put out great damage, especially when you consider that they don't generally need to move to change targets.

This puts their extreme amount of Arrows-shot-per-Round (aka the melee attack equivalent) to the level of other combatants. And it is not too hard a nerf as it frees up two feats for the archer, instead of strictly making stuff they had, and used effort to get, worse.

It depends somewhat on the AC of your opponent, but assuming you're not in a super low accuracy case (e.g., hitting only on a 19 or 20) banning Manyshot and Rapid Shot is a not at all a minor nerf. In a typical case, you'll lose around 40% of the damage an archer typically does. Maybe that's what you're going for. But it's not "minor" in the least.

That would put Archery on the damage-dealing level of Sword & Board, but who can Full Attack every round and doesnt need to eat AOOs when trying to get into position in many fights. Reach opponents are not rare.

[Melkiador]

I still say nerfing precise shot is where you should start. A single feat giving an almost always used +4 to hit shouldn't exist.

Rather than banning rapid shot and multishot, you should just increase their accuracy penalties. What you should ultimately aim for is making those feats feel like choices instead of "must haves".

[JAMRenaissance]

HellHunter wrote:

The resistance is there pretty much because you're asking for feedback from a balance perspective. When you ask for this kind of feedback, you will get responses regarding the actual game balance rather than flavor. It's at your discretion to make the rules for flavor; you can add or remove anything from your campaign if you so please, and none of us are to judge. But because you're asking for feedback about balance, the game now becomes entirely about the mechanics and "playing for plusses" rather than fun. I'd also like to point out that usually these go hand in hand, especially in the case of those who like to play DPS; if the player feels like he is inadequate or are not contributing to a certain level, odds are he isn't going to be having as much fun as he could be.

Simply, the nerfs seem over-aggressive, and may minimize the desire to want to play an archer to begin with based upon...

I would counter that with the statement that ANY negative to archery is pushed back on, not simply the concept that things are imbalanced. The exact nature and extent of the nerf doesn't matter; any nerf is a problem. If ANYTHING is a problem, I begin to question if the analysis is one based on balance or based on plusses. You'll note my statement - I'm talking about killing ONE FEAT, and that is enough to get "foul" cried.

I'd also toss out that anyone that likes to play for DPS is by definition Playing For Plusses.

Melkiador wrote:

I still say nerfing precise shot is where you should start. A single feat giving an almost always used +4 to hit shouldn't exist.

Rather than banning rapid shot and multishot, you should just increase their accuracy penalties. What you should ultimately aim for is making those feats feel like choices instead of "must haves".

That actually doesn't seem that bad, and minimizes "unintended consequences".

[AwesomenessDog]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

The resistance is there pretty much because you're asking for feedback from a balance perspective. When you ask for this kind of feedback, you will get responses regarding the actual game balance rather than flavor. It's at your discretion to make the rules for flavor; you can add or remove anything from your campaign if you so please, and none of us are to judge. But because you're asking for feedback about balance, the game now becomes entirely about the mechanics and "playing for plusses" rather than fun. I'd also like to point out that usually these go hand in hand, especially in the case of those who like to play DPS; if the player feels like he is inadequate or are not contributing to a certain level, odds are he isn't going to be having as much fun as he could be.

Simply, the nerfs seem over-aggressive, and may minimize the desire to want to play an archer to begin with based upon...

I would counter that with the statement that ANY negative to archery is pushed back on, not simply the concept that things are imbalanced. The exact nature and extent of the nerf doesn't matter; any nerf is a problem. If ANYTHING is a problem, I begin to question if the analysis is one based on balance or based on plusses. You'll note my statement - I'm talking about killing ONE FEAT, and that is enough to get "foul" cried.

That's irrelevant for building a mechanic: you always assume someone is going to optimize so that it isn't too powerful of a deal and on the other hand that it isn't next to worthless as far as party role goes even in its most extreme form. Your original changes are overcompensating far to much -taken as a whole- to balance them on purely a balance basis, that is unarguable as has already been explained. Some of the ideas are better than others; to me burning a feat isn't lynchable (I burn point blank shot in my games because its a stupid feat tax) but burning it before considering alternatives is ill-advised.

JAMRenaissance wrote:

I'd also toss out that anyone that likes to play for DPS is by definition Playing For Plusses.

How so? Casters don't even need pluses (from feats at least) to be effective; what's wrong with a martial, or in this case archer, trying to synergize feats to have something they are good at? The difference is that some builds are stronger than others like some classes/roles, and certain feats are so much better that they are pretty much a requirement for all builds; the solution, treat optimization within reasonable role play boundaries (e.g. a clumsy barbarian shouldn't be putting ranks into disable device) as ok but crack down on munchkinry and power playing.

I know I put a lot of mostly unrelated stuff in there but this still has to do with balance as a whole.

[HeHateMe]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

Hey guys,

Archery is far and above the most powerful method of ranged attack, and often is better than standard melee attack. Given that I am debuffing guns a bit in my campaign (they are all musket-type weapons, which practically means you can't shoot a single gun more often than every other round), I need to bring down archery just a touch. As a first go-round solution, I am considering saying that you can only use Feats to enhance one aspect of archery at a time: Damage, Fire Rate, or Accuracy. So you can use Rapid/Many Shot, but not at the same time as Deadly Aim or Precise Shot, as an example.
This doesn't feel like a harsh nerfing, but I would like to get some thoughts from outside of my campaign on bringing Archery more in line with other forms of combat.

Personally I don't believe archery needs a debuff, rather it requires that GMs understand and use the cover rules that exist in the game. A -4 penalty for cover is HUGE, and in my experience, it's ridiculously easy for bad guys to get cover. Most of the time when I hear b%&++ing about archery, it's because the GM is forgetting about cover. Unless the archer character is super optimized, the ones I've seen miss the majority of their shots. Rangers and Zen Archers are an exception because they get Improved Precise Shot at 6th lvl and can ignore most types of cover.

Also, archers aren't good in melee, so if they're engaged by bad guys, they're not as effective.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

Abrisene wrote:

Have one quiver equipped at a time.

Each quiver has 20 arrows, weighs 3 lbs.
When the quiver runs out, use a Move Action to retrieve the next quiver, which provokes for Retrieve a Stowed Item.
If generous, have the quivers replaced during the Retrieve.
If not, have a Move to remove empty quiver, Move to Retrieve, then a Move to don the new quiver.

Force your archers to rely on scouting in order to stash quivers in tactical locations, such as fall-back points.

Trying to play a dedicated arrow turret should not be feasible without a +2 Endless Ammunition enchant, whereas managing weight and the Action economy of quiver rotation is intrinsic to the archer experience.

Roll or otherwise determine weather.
Random Weather
Almost 20% of the time, weather should be modifying play; mostly to the detriment of ranged attacks.

I really like how this adds complexity to archery, with archers having to decide between, say, a full attack, and one silver arrow, or using rapid shot knowing that you'll have to reload soon. Well done.

[HellHunter]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

I'd also toss out that anyone that likes to play for DPS is by definition Playing For Plusses.

You mentioned earlier that some people play for plusses and that you're aiming to nerf archery by debuffing it to have fun.

Sorry to break it to you, but some people have fun playing DPS. What's more is that if a player does not feel like they have an impact on the game in the way they want to, be it lore, mechanics, meta-contributions like humor at the table, etc., then that is distinctly "less fun" as then the game becomes less-interactive and defeats the purpose of tabletop RPG's.

I'd also suggest that you reconsider asking for balance suggestions from now on if you are not interested in getting responses based upon balance which literally can only be devised by optimizing characters or simulating various circumstances and build optimizations. In fact, nerfing DPS for the arbitrary reason of reducing damage output to make it more comparable with melee players is a contradiction if DPS is the only measure taken; rogues supply terrible damage but are a necessary staple in most campaigns for their utility. A paladin will be innately tankier, and so on. Does this justify nerfing the rogue's ability to scout or disable traps? That can be way more advantageous than a sheer numbers game, and depending on the game scenario, could be seen as wildly OP. Likewise, the tank-built paladin sustaining against a large quantity of lower-CR opponents (something anything squishier could not do) could be seen as overpowered depending on the context and design of the encounter space or the game as a whole.

If you are going to be upset with negative responses to your originally-proposed idea, then either do not ask for feedback, or do not state that "you are not our GM" as a means of pushing against the responses. There is resistance because such changes would make players actively pursue other character options entirely because the originally-proposed idea is so punishing... for seemingly no reason other than to make it 'not the best', which is already is, and even then that was never explained in full. Your idea does not cut out one feat; it cuts out a ton of different combinations and build varieties based on the level of the game. If anything, it cuts resources and combinations down to so few that the game becomes much more about "Playing for Plusses" and optimizing around that restriction than just going in a general direction of where the character is desired to go. Yes, there are more "tactical options" available by circumstance, but in the realm of ranged combat, there are definite optimizations based on the nature of the campaign.

Like I said earlier, I can make a bloodrager at level 8 deal 100+ non-crit damage per turn after a 100 foot charge while having a 15 foot melee attack range using no spells, enchanted items, masterwork weapons, buffs, 3rd party abilities, etc. Loaded up on extras it becomes completely absurd. I'm sorry to say that unless you're playing a very strict rule set about class options and builds for every character (allowing for selection of a few pre-assigned options like D&D 5th edition), there's very little reason to believe your original suggestion is going to solve its intended problem, which is putting archery on the levels of post-nerf guns. The why has still also yet to be explained, so justification for why is still lurking and thus people are resistant to it. If enchanted items/ammunition are the fear, cut manyshot. If you're not delving in magic much in the campaign as a whole or/and are banning its use entirely, prevent rangers from using spells (this provides a hefty sum of their utility and damage). Arrow-turreting too strong? See the above quiver solution or enforce something like smaller quiver sizes. Of course, the more restrictions you put on the game, the more apparent it is you're railroading players to pick a base melee fighter... in which case just force them into the class, and if they're still happy you're their DM, play. No debate over balance or "playing for plusses" vs what's "fun" needed here. Personally, I love optimizing characters. I've spent entire weeks of my free time making "best-possible" combinations and/or very contradictory concepts fairly viable. They prove to be great campaign additions given the right amount of lore and distinct/player-enforced virtues and ethics. Ridiculously-high-DPS "batman" that will not kill anything but leave targets unconscious is a great way to get some humor in and make for a great bragging contest of "most kills" between your barbarian and your kill-snagging bard.

A campaign is driven and successful based on how well the players mesh into the world and the quality of the lore and environments they explore. Stats mean nothing when a DM can buff or not buff, sell or not sell, drop loot or not drop loot, and so on targeted to specific players. Whether or not the archer out-DPS's the fighter is irrelevant to the quality of the game and the player perspective.

Recall you're still the DM. You can create custom monsters or mechanics targeted at promoting contribution from all players. I lie about my dice rolls all the time behind the screen because it promotes more interesting play when called for. I give arbitrary bonuses or penalties when they make sense for lore reasons. Your players should have good control over their characters and how they play them, because that's what they see as being fun; it's why they picked the character to begin with, no? Changing the environment or behaviors of things in that environment is fully in your control and not necessarily expected or desired from the players. That's where you really should be aiming to bring in more diversity and balance.

[Mike J]

I think the decision on how much to nerf archery really depends on your group's level of optimization. At a bare minimum, as GM you MUST enforce all of the rules, especially cover and concealment. Also, play the monsters smart - once the arrows start flying, even the dumbest of creatures will take cover.

When I was playing with some pretty heavy optimizers, I found that getting rid of Many Shot was just enough to keep things balanced. I could see adding more feats to the "ban list" if your group is more "normal".

Another consideration is getting rid of Clustered Shots, especially if the archer is NOT the sole damage dealer for the group.

Whatever you decide to do, beware of making archery a sub-par fighting style by banning too much. If you make archery too weak, nobody will select it and you might as well have said "no archery."

[Freehold DM]

I just make people count their arrows.

Unfun? Maybe. So is the archer killing every opponent while the rest of the party chilaxes.

[redcelt32]

I just banned clustered shots as a feat to balance archery. Since I already don't allow magical "plusses" on weapons to auto bypass DR, if I want an encounter to be particularly challenging to the archer, I just pick one with DR. That way he can still be awesome most of the time. Of course, if your archer is a paladin, this doesn't really work so well :)

[kyrt-ryder]

The problem isn't Archery being too good, it's every other ranged weapon being too crappy [except firearms when used by a specific class.]

Best thing to do is bring everything else up to par [perhaps restricting the better benefits given to Simple Weapons to those with Martial Weapon proficiency in them.]

That and provide better mobility to melee combatants.

[JAMRenaissance]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

Stuff

I really think your responses are interestingly connected. My statement isn't due to a resistance to my initial idea; it's due to a resistance to ANY nerfing. I recognize that some people play for optimization, so I really don't knock someone for doing so. However, I will label it as such.

I do want to add, though...

HellHunter wrote:

If you are going to be upset with negative responses to your originally-proposed idea, then either do not ask for feedback, or do not state that "you are not our GM" as a means of pushing against the responses.

Dude, there's no anger here. This is discussion and debate. Heck, I've already decided that it would be a better idea to modify/eliminate Rapid/Manyshot rather than have players pick which direction they're buffing at a time. Apologies if it came off as "angry"; we can disagree about things without things being problematic.

[AwesomenessDog]

JAMRenaissance wrote:

AwesomenessDog wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

Stuff

I really think your responses are interestingly connected. My statement isn't due to a resistance to my initial idea; it's due to a resistance to ANY nerfing. I recognize that some people play for optimization, so I really don't knock someone for doing so. However, I will label it as such.

No, while I can't speak for HellHunter although I would guess he is in the same boat as me, I don't have a problem with nerfing, I don't have a problem with making house rules to balance stuff, I don't have a problem with people trying to tell me (assuming you were my hypothetical gm in the hypothetical game using the OP HR) what their rules are. But no one would play archer save for the elf caster who wants some weapons for when they aren't casting.

Archery is better than martials; how much so? Hardly at all: their only advantage is range and if they are full attacking all the time its only so long before the fighter closes in and there isn't a single archer "class" that gets flying in any easier of a way than fighter does. So how do we balance this? Well its practically already balanced enough that the only noticeable difference will be while optimized on both sides but as HellHunter stated that's what you have to assume when talking balance, even though most people don't optimize every character they play for DPS, Boosting, Healing, Tankiness, etc. (and really one could argue that even if someone is building an average build by choice, he/she is optimizing his/her fun instead of their DPS). So even if you want to make that little push to hypothetical perfect balance - even though its never possible - it is very little of an adjustment. You however suggested something that not only nerfs almost every aspect of progressing as an archer build, it also makes it so making an actual build is not possible since you can only use feats for one aspect of combat at a time which is not a build for a combat style which only as so many feats for it. Most of your nerfs also apply to all ranged builds (crossbows, guns, slings) due to your wording, not just archery.

If you want to nerf something for flavor, do it for flavor, if you want to do it for balance, do it for balance; these two almost never cross over. But you specifically asked for balance which the OP does not achieve, just makes worse in the opposite dirrection.