| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we promptly told you that the way to challenge him more without "Screwing him over" was to put back in soft cover.Which...also just encourages him getting point blank with enemies. He gets +1 attack/damage, doesn't provoke due to PBM, and an enemy right next to him doesn't get soft cover.
And he has also conveniently removed the main advantage of a ranged damage dealer.
Dealing damage at range.
God job, him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He outdamages your melee guy because your melee guy has taken every opportunity to shoot himself in the foot insofar as being a good damage dealer is concerned.
If he wanted to be a melee fighter, he could have made one that did even more damage in melee than his bow does at range. And would be a hell of a lot sturdier, to eat those full attacks he'll be taking to the face.
Moving into melee to fire is a really, really dumb idea for any archer, AoOs or no. Particularly one with only 12 Con.
And if he DOES move into melee, purposefully, he f!&%ed up and you should have no qualms about having the big beefy sword guy he's fighting snap his bow in half and steal his milk money while he's at it. The guy doesn't even need Sunder Feats, without Snap Shot he can't even take AoOs in melee.
There's a difference between having enemies charge up to the archer to specifically sunder his bow, and having the archer stand right next to an enemy fighter and peppering him with arrows, giving the enemy an open and easy shot to do so.So...how many arrows does it take before the enemy decides "Hey, let's sunder the bow" instead of "Hey, let's use normal attacks?" That's a serious question. And if the world is one where many archers (rangers, fighters, zen monks, maybe more) DON'T trigger AoOs...wouldn't the default action for intelligent enemies at relatively higher level be to trip/sunder/disarm/etc archers ASAP?
You missed the point that was being made when the classes that could take PBM were pointed out. This isn't a case of "many archers" being able to avoid triggering AoO's...this is a case of a very limited subsection of archers taking a feat that is nice to have occasionally, but most people agree is worse than the many other feats that provide consistent value that could be selected instead.
|
So, I will have to agree that the option of just disallowing the feat seems to be the best choice...
I don't think anyone said you should use tricks like fickle winds every combat, but k owing they are there may make him think about it. Have a large reportoir of tactics to challenge him is the key.
Also, finding things that will reduce the efficiency of the archer while not hurting the other PCs is going to be really hard, unless you don't use the tactics against the other pcs.
At this level, spells like suggestion ("attack only with that sword you have"), confusion, and the like will make the archer wonder if he needs to tone it down so that if these bad thing happen others can handle him.
Other spells like pilfering hand or burning disarm to get the bow out of his hands are good. Spells that panic or affects that stun will make him drop the bow. DIminuative or smaller swarms will be immune to his bow.
Perhaps the best thing will be encounter design. Make it hard for him to get full attacks die to twisting corridors or the like. Environmental effects like smoke or dust (probably emulating obscuring mist), so that he has to close to hit.
If you don't want to destroy/sunder the bow, go after the quiver!
Zombies (or other DR/slashing monsters) won't make the paladin less effective, and the monk could always draw his sickle/dagger/other slashing monk weapon and still flurry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else thinking he came here for justification to disallow the feat, then didn't get it? So far he's seemed to like just the smokestack idea. Which neuters the archers because he can't see through smoke.
Saying "just core" then given the archer chances to use non-Core material like adaptive and Point Blank Master is your own fault. Without that weapon enhancement, even a lv1 sorcerer using ray of enfeeblement would handle your issues and still be able to hit the paladin and the monk too if he survived long enough.
He outdamages your melee guy because your melee guy has taken every opportunity to shoot himself in the foot insofar as being a good damage dealer is concerned.Huh? I'm not comparing him to anyone in the party, I'm comparing him to a hypothetical 2H greatsword wielding "alter ego." If the archer redid his build with a focus on strength and took Power attack with a greatsword and such...he'd lower his damage per round when full attacking.
If you want me to lay out the math I will, but if you go back a page you'll note at least one other person agreeing with me that Rapid Shot and Manyshot means the 2H does less damage than the archer, even in an ideal situation.
Which is, again, why staying at range is about more than just avoiding AoOs. How long would it take for your player to learn that lesson?That's when we run into the whole issue of "players sundering like crazy is fine because the enemies are supposed to die, enemies sundering like crazy is just being a dick to the party."
Also, the archer has higher CMD than the paladin or monk...his downside is not being able to take an AoO if the enemy DOESN'T have Improved Sunder/Trip/etc.
Damn. If OP hates Point-Blank Master this much no one tell him about Snap Shot.From a book we're not using, huzzah!
You missed the point that was being made when the classes that could take PBM were pointed out.You don't think Fighters, Rangers, and Zen Archers (along with a few other odd exceptions) are going to make up a large percentage of archers? I think it's fair to call them "many."
most people agree is worse than the many other feats that provide consistent value that could be selected instead.It's not a matter of either/or, though. He can have all of those and also have PBM. If he had to make a permanent choice of getting Precise...
You must be kidding. A two-handed fighter requires only Strength to do his damage, and maybe a Dexterity of 12 (assuming he exchanges Armor Training via Two-Handed Fighter archetype) and a Constitution of 12 or higher (make it 14, since he won't have much of a defense anyway). Whereas an Archer requires both solid Strength (for damage) and solid Dexterity (for defenses and to-hit).
Presuming 9th level, by himself, we're looking at: 9 (BAB) + 8 (Strength) + 4 (Weapon Training) + 2 (Enhancement) + 2 (Weapon Focii) - 3 (Power Attack) = +22/+17 to-hit. (Bonus points if he decides to take Furious Focus.) The Archer might have more attacks, but his to-hit suffers greatly, since you're factoring in ~2 less Dexterity bonus (as you need Strength to back-up your damage capability), and Rapid Shot (which is a -2 across the board), not to mention any cover, range increments (unlikely, but possible), and so on, meaning he would be losing upwards of 4 to his to-hit before factoring in the other relevant penalties.
There's also the factor that he has to deal with miss-chance effects more often, which can likewise hinder his overall DPR (and means effects like Blur and Displacement are extremely effective against an Archer enemy). Sure, Point Blank Shot can help, but as we've stated, that can put the Archer in the danger zone, and its benefits are meager at best.
For damage, you're looking at: 1D10 (5.5 Weapon Damage average) + 12 (1.5x Strength) + 4 (Weapon Training) + 2 (Enhancement) + 2 (Weapon Specialization) + 9 (Power Attack) = 34.5 damage per hit, or 69 damage per round, not including a very possible critical hit (which would double a single hit to the normal damage per round he inflicts). If he was given Haste, that would increase to 103.5 damage per round, before any criticals being confirmed (of which, he would have three good opportunities to land at least one of them).
The Archer would have slightly less base damage dice (1 point difference), have only 1/3 of the Strength bonus, and have only 2/3 of the Deadly Aim benefit. Not to mention, his critical threatening will be garbage with a bow, as it's only X3 (good multiplier, crap threat range), meaning if the Nodachi wielder criticals on just one attack, there's no way he'll match the damage output, since he can only reach 22.5 damage per hit (or 67 damage per round, assuming all hits).
Manyshot is perhaps the only way he can beat the base output, since that makes his first hit add all of his bonuses (including damage dice) twice, bringing it up to 45 (and increasing the DPR to 90). But again, the likelihood of all 3 attacks hitting (especially the low-iterative attack) are fairly slim.
Granted, he would have to deal with DR the same as the Archer, but even with DR 15/- (which is about as high as it gets for 9th level), it's an average of 18.5 damage per hit (before criticals), whereas the Archer is losing 11 points of damage, putting him at 7.5 damage per hit. 37 V.S. 22.5. Even with Manyshot, that's bringing it up to 31, which would put him still behind the Two-handed Fighter.
Sundering is a fair tactic. If the PCs can use it, why can't the GM? Because it's a "dick move"? There's a lot of "dick moves" being done all the time in the world of Pathfinder, it's just behind-the-scenes and the PCs aren't involved 99% of the time. That BBEG? I'm fairly certain whatever his plans are, it involves every "dick move" in the book to accomplish. Heck, I'm fairly certain immature PCs perform "dick moves" all the time, and I don't even refer to the combats they're participating in.
Again, you should be thankful. Because if you think that's the only option to make bows a threat in melee combat, you'd be a fool.
If by "odd exceptions," you mean "a lot more and those are just the ones that qualify for Point Blank Master," then sure. Of course, Cavaliers, Inquisitors, and other certain archetyped classes would be interested in a feat like Point Blank Master, so suggesting that those who qualify for Point Blank Master are the majority of classes who are archers is equally silly.
So, a feat that he uses all the time is fine. Another feat that he uses all the time is fine. But a feat that he uses in the event he's absolutely screwed, is not okay? Gotcha. Remind me to never play a Paladin in whatever campaign you run, otherwise I'd be in a lose/lose situation because I decided to pick two really smart and good decisions, and fall no matter what I do in the subsequent situation, because that's basically what you're doing here.
The thing is, PBM isn't non-core. It's from an approved source that you've specifically allowed in its entirety, the APG. You're denying it based on conjecture of the option being supposedly overpowered (which has been disproven many times over), which I imagine is something that should have been done before allowing the entire source in the first place. Adhoc banning an option the PC wants just because you don't like it is much more of a "dick move" than having a monster or enemy use Sunder/Disarm/Grapple maneuvers on the Archer PC. Just FYI.
If he doesn't move to safety, he's still going to get full-attacked and smashed in the face in the following round. Even if he's an Archer with higher AC, that means little when the monster has high enough BAB to basically guarantee a hit (or two) whenever he attacks, because he lacks the recovery abilities of PCs like the Paladin with Lay On Hands, or Monks with Ki.
If I'm a level 1 PC with no magic items or anything, and then I continue to level, I have no reason to pick up items like Magic Weapons or Rings of Protection. None. No Magic Weapons means I don't have to deal with creatures that possess DR. No Rings of Protection means the GM doesn't have to throw monsters with ridiculous to-hit bonuses at me. Hell, I don't even have to adventure or go out and kill anything, because whatever challenges I face scales to my ability. If I'm level 1, and I continue to stay level 1, then everything that I come across will be appropriate to my skills as a PC.
It removes any danger sense from the game, it removes any purpose of gaining linear power. In fact, it entirely destroys Martial characters, since most every Martial gains power linearly, whereas Spellcasters gain power quadratically (as is the case with the C/MD). So, why would those Archers and Paladins and Monks go out adventuring? Who gives a damn when there's no extreme challenge to rise up toward, because if I was meant for that challenge, the GM would just throw it at me when I was ready to take it on. And even if there was, what would I gain out of it? Experience? Cool, so it works me toward another level that is supposedly different but is still exactly the same as it was before.
Long story short: That sort of GM playstyle means you put the Glass Floor on the same level as the Glass Ceiling, and defeats the purpose of going out and adventuring, which is to grow powerful, experience the harsh and unforgiving world, make a name for yourself across the land, and so on. But with everything being equal as you are, no matter what your character choices are, you're ending up being just another Average Joe at a Tuesday Diner like everybody else is.
If by "close enough," you mean "People can't tell the difference," then sure. If by "close enough," you mean the literal term, then it's conditional at best, and at worst it's just flat-out wrong.
Feats and spells give characters the ability to do stuff. Get over it.
For any one thing that your players comes up with, you as GM have a dozen more tricks you can pull. Figure it out.
The feat isn't over powered.
It's fun when you start reading a thread thinking, "Wow, what an articulate request for advice, I'll see if I can help." and end the thread thinking, "Wow, the guy doesn't actually want help, and insults people that make accurate and polite, suggestions about how his choices to ignore some rules would mitigate some of his problem."
There are a lot of Saints on the boards today that are willing to put up with that kind of attitude.
Thank you, to all the Saints.
This is precisely what I ended up thinking before I made it halfway through the first page. Really all the excellent points and relevant advice was given in the first few posts.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Anyone else thinking he came here for justification to disallow the feat, then didn't get it? So far he's seemed to like just the smokestack idea. Which neuters the archers because he can't see through smoke.
Saying "just core" then given the archer chances to use non-Core material like adaptive and Point Blank Master is your own fault. Without that weapon enhancement, even a lv1 sorcerer using ray of enfeeblement would handle your issues and still be able to hit the paladin and the monk too if he survived long enough.
In before the GM comes back to complain about the Fogcutting Lenses the fighter is planning on buying to negate all the smokesticks enemies inexplicably started using.
It sounds to me at this point you need to keep him moving. He can't full attack if he moves. Send creatures with a lot of natural attacks that do smaller than normal damage, but the number of attacks add up to the point it's a threat. It shouldn't hurt the monk as much due to higher ac. So have the bad guy make like 8 attacks as a full attack doing 3/4ths the damage the archer does in a hit.
You have mentioned that damage reduction hurts the monk more, but damage reduction does not have to be universal. The archer in my game is ignorable when I throw skeletons at them. A monk would just keep pounding them away.
It sounds to me at this point you need to keep him moving. He can't full attack if he moves. Send creatures with a lot of natural attacks that do smaller than normal damage, but the number of attacks add up to the point it's a threat. It shouldn't hurt the monk as much due to higher ac. So have the bad guy make like 8 attacks as a full attack doing 3/4ths the damage the archer does in a hit.
You have mentioned that damage reduction hurts the monk more, but damage reduction does not have to be universal. The archer in my game is ignorable when I throw skeletons at them. A monk would just keep pounding them away.
A.) Why assume the Monk has a higher AC? The archer is more incentivized to have a higher Dex, and can wear armor.
B.) Your archer needs to smarten up and buy some blunt arrows.
It sounds to me at this point you need to keep him moving. He can't full attack if he moves. Send creatures with a lot of natural attacks that do smaller than normal damage, but the number of attacks add up to the point it's a threat. It shouldn't hurt the monk as much due to higher ac. So have the bad guy make like 8 attacks as a full attack doing 3/4ths the damage the archer does in a hit.
You have mentioned that damage reduction hurts the monk more, but damage reduction does not have to be universal. The archer in my game is ignorable when I throw skeletons at them. A monk would just keep pounding them away.
A.) Why assume the Monk has a higher AC? The archer is more incentivized to have a higher Dex, and can wear armor.
B.) Your archer needs to smarten up and buy some blunt arrows.
I assume because it was outright stated.
Can't buy what's not available. Not that I would stop her. But there are other kinds of DR too.
@ Sundakan: The archer is actually only more incentivized than a pure Strength martial, and even then, that's really only an inverse of how Strength martials optimize (high Strength, low to average Dexterity, compared to high Dexterity, low to average Strength).
A Monk or other Martial-SAD character (UCRogue is one example) would be more incentivized to Dexterity than any other character, since their main schtick requires their Dexterity to be as high as possible, and in most cases, pure Dexterity PCs don't practically wear armor by the endgame.
On top of that, compared to any other pure Dexterity class, Monks get multiple AC sources besides Armor (which Bracers of Armor +8 gives more armor than any other armor in the game for pure Dexterity PCs, even Mage Armor and +5 Silken Ceremonial Armor don't beat it), such as Wisdom to AC, meaning even if the Archer has the same Dexterity and Armor as the Monk, he'll be able to add his Wisdom to AC (which I presume will be something positive, somewhere in the +5 region), and that makes the difference.
I also doubt the GM would allow Blunt Arrows if he thinks PBM is overpowered. He also probably won't allow arrows to be made out of any special materials either.
@ Balkoth: Doubtful, since you think PBM is overpowered when it allows more universal versatility in combat, similar to what special material/blunt arrows do in relation to DR.
The Archer Fighter does get access to Penetrating Strike feats, which means banning blunt arrows won't do anything in the long run. A Ranger or other ranged specialist class, on the other hand, would be permanently screwed, so all you're doing is making the Archer Fighter a more valuable character choice by imposing that ban.
Two-handed Fighter is specialized in dealing lots of damage before the enemy deals enough to kill the Two-handed Fighter. Being able to add 2x Strength on attacks and (eventually) Greater Power Attack is certainly worth the armor loss, since their only line of defense is hit points anyway. They also technically don't gain armor, as the AC increase is tangential to the Fighter's Dexterity. Usually, two-handed martials aren't Dexterity-based, which means Armor Training doesn't improve AC as is assumed. Mobility also doesn't mean a whole lot unless you can Pounce (which Two-handed Fighters can't do at all), since Full Attacking only allows 5-foot steps. So, for pure damage comparison? Perfectly viable.
And Fighters are weaklings compared to Barbarians who have infinitely better versatility and defenses, such as scaling DR, and more HP and means to boost their damage capabilities. Quite frankly, the Two-handed Fighter I proposed is an insult compared to what a real two-handed martial is capable of.
The claim you posed is that Archers in general are better than Melee in general. So, proving that would require using the most assumed standard (which I believe is what PFS uses), and not your houseruling. Those problems you presented are specific to your table, and only your table (and not the types of character as a whole), and as such is irrelevant to the points that I've made. Using houserules to support your point extends no further than the table it's applied to, which means its hardly a valid rules argument when trying to argue a general assumption.
Nothing in Point Blank Shot says you ignore any cover the enemy possesses. That's what Improved Precise Shot, which isn't available until 11th level, and doesn't ignore total cover. And if you're fretting about PBM, then you should ban Improved Precise Shot as well, since it's basically doing the same thing in relation to using cover as a tactic to use against the archer, in that it's pointless to do.
You proceed to call a -2 to-hit not a significant penalty, but then call a +1 to attack and damage a significant bonus? The to-hit penalty is way more significant than the attack/damage bonus, since it's universally assumed that attack bonuses are twice as valuable as damage bonuses based on the Power Attack equivalency. Contradiction detected.
Even with the +2 Belt (because apparently a +4 is unacceptable even though the WBL budget clearly supports it), a properly-statted Fighter will have significantly more to-hit and deal significantly more damage per hit, since he can consolidate the bonuses to hit attacks and the bonuses to his damage rolls into a single attribute, instead of spreading it out like the Archer is forced to do to maintain effectiveness. Not to mention having the benefits of 2x Strength due to the Two-handed Fighter archetype does provide even more damage than what you've listed.
Against AC 23, the Fighter I proposed only fails on a 1 with his first (and Haste) attack(s), and fails on a 5 or less with his second attack, two of those attacks having 2x Strength. Similarly, the Archer would fail on a 4 or less with his two higher attacks (and Haste attack), and fail on a 9 or more with his lower attack, which means regularly, the Archer's iterative attack would miss, and each attack dealing with DR equally. Whereas the Fighter you proposed is much weaker with his attacks (and damage), and has just as bad of defenses as the Fighter I made, and the Archer is (for the most part) exactly the same (I think I actually gave him more Strength).
15-20/X2 and X3 multipliers are hardly a 5% damage difference. You just said +1 to hit and damage is a 15% damage boost, there's no way being able to critical 6 times as often to double the damage you deal with a given hit (of which, the Nodachi deals 50% more damage per hit in comparison) is only a 5% damage difference. Even with Improved Critical on the Longbow, the Nodachi criticals 3 times as frequent as the Longbow does.
I'd say being 100-0'd in a single round constitutes being absolutely screwed. Not provoking doesn't mean that the giant monster can't completely destroy the Archer that's shooting toothpicks at him. The only thing PBM is doing for him in that situation is letting him fight back without screwing himself over more than what he already is screwing himself over with.
Could've fooled me. Quite frankly, if you're that lax with the Paladin Code, then I don't get why you're persecuting the Archer's feat choice worse than any GM does with a given Paladin. Because again, that's basically what you're doing here. Last I checked, Fighters don't have some "Martial Code of Conduct" that says "I will always leave glaring weaknesses for my enemies to exploit so as to promote a fair fight," and even if they did, it certainly isn't any more binding than a Paladin's Code of Conduct (which you don't give two figs about apparently), meaning the PC (and by relation, the player) doesn't have to adhere to that sort of reasoning.
Not really. If I was a PC that had to work around that sort of thing, I'd take measures to make sure that I don't deal with that crap again, like the Called Weapon property (which means I can call my weapon back 1/round as a Swift Action), or a Ring of Freedom of Movement.
In this case, the PC wants to avoid having to deal with enemies that have Reach (or threaten his current space) by taking PBM. He's taking tools that will help him deal with something that he considers a glaring issue.
From this, there should be no problem or issue to draw upon. It's actually no different than a PC wielding a Reach Weapon deciding he should have Armor Spikes to help threaten adjacent areas. Except by your token, he shouldn't be able to, since threatening adjacent areas is something that a Reach Weapon wielder shouldn't be able to do.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balkoth, I think it would help if you tell us what you actually want from out of this thread.
Your OP included the words 'I' and 'am' and 'new' and was posted in the advice forum. Clearly, it appears that you would be seeking advice on the problems you are facing with your level 6 Archer. What confuses me is that after a number of people provided pages of advice on possible solutions, and then pages more after you mentioned your houserules that indirectly buff archery even more, you seemed to ignore all of it.
Like, by all means, ignore advice - its your game, but atm it just feels like all you want from us is a roaring endorsement of your desire to ban something you feel is overpowered, something that probably wont happen, since everyone else recognizes that the feat is fine as is. Why don't you have the confidence in your own position to simply ban the feat within your game and have done with it instead of making a massive thread about this trying to justify it to us? What are you trying to prove?
Like, I don't want to come across as rude or anything, but there are a ton of different ways you could have approached this. I don't see you trying to be productive with the people spending time trying to help you with a problem largely of your own design/creation, and instead of working with people, you are coming across as working against everyone else, flat rejecting every suggestion or option without really entertaining alternative options and posting defensively. If you feel that there is no other solution (and it sounds like you do since you haven't shown any sides of being broad minded since the threads inception), why did you make this thread? Once more with feeling, what advice are you really looking for - because I'm struggling to see what you are trying to get out of this thread.
I also doubt the GM would allow Blunt Arrows if he thinks PBM is overpowered. He also probably won't allow arrows to be made out of any special materials either.You would be wrong on both counts.
You have mentioned that damage reduction hurts the monk more, but damage reduction does not have to be universal. The archer in my game is ignorable when I throw skeletons at them. A monk would just keep pounding them away.I'd effectively have to disallow Blunt Arrows, then.
Balkoth, I'm with ginganinja, here. Clearly we don't understand what it is that you want. I'm not sure I've seen a single post agreeing with you that this is a problem; plenty of consensus that yes, ranged combat is strong, but it comes at a significant feat cost, which you admit you've lessened by giving your player a free 11th level feat. I get it, I do the same thing, but I then accept that I've made ranged characters stronger as a result and I own that (and move on, because there are spellcasters in my party capable of doing far more devastating things than to make me worry about what the fighter is doing.)
EDIT: And I'm still troubled by your comment that you told the player that you'd have to have enemies "react" if he took the feat. That still kills me. That's like telling your spellcaster, "Well look, you can take Spell Focus, but if you do, I'm going to give all your enemies Iron Will."
In any case, I just get unnecessarily frustrated by this thread, so I'm just going to see myself out and hide it. Best of luck.
Balkoth, i think you've probably come to the wrong place for advice on the issue. Generally posters on the Paizo boards play the whole field when it comes to class options, feats, products. They are against limits to players, particularly martials, and would prefer to offer tactics to fix problems rather and ban things. Generally the call seems to be even more powers for Martials. All these points aren't surprising considering the forums contain people who are deeply passionate about Pathfinder.
However, the danger is it gets forgotten that it's your game, not ours and you already have the responsibility to keep the game enjoyable for everyone - that includes yourself. I wouldn't try to 'win' some kind of this feat isn't balanced argument - trust me you won't for the political martial balance point I raised above - just look at the feat and decide if you want characters to do that in your game.
I had a very similar response when a player on here complained that I had banned agile breastplates from my skull and shackles game. It was met with incredulity, and contempt, how dare I ban something from a book. I wouldn't expect any other response from the boards.
My advice is to speak to the player and ask them point blank (pun intended) how is that feat going to make the game better, more heroic, more fun for everybody. If they come up with a good pitch then let them give it a go on the understanding that you will review it two sessions and give him the chance to swap it for an alternative.
Incidentally there is a reason will save targeting spells are call S o S. It's because it's because it ain't fun to be paralyzed, cursed, dominated. You have to sit there and do nothing through combats that you should be shining in. If you use it on him more than incense or twice he WILL feel victimized and you will have far more problems than banning a feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the fact he is looking for people to endorse his opinion (as he was with his thread about the Roc if I remember correctly) has been abundantly clear from the start.
@Balkoth: One thing to consider, if you are concerned about using special tactics against the group is reputation. From an in game perspective, the PCs are becoming increasingly powerful as they level. I've typically seen folks equate 5th level with effectively the peak of real world human capability in terms of things that are shared between PF and reality.
So your group has a powerful archer, known to pepper enemies with lethal shafts, sometimes while right next to the enemy! Well... then he should be *known* to do that. That usually translates into some special tactic used a couple of times in an encounter with groups who would be organized and expected to plan. In a "boss" fight that would perhaps lead to the leader having taken a precaution of some kind while the minions are continuing to play the role of cannon fodder. Give the leader Wind Wall... as a one time use consumable with a 2 round duration or something. A little special something they had commissioned. And be fair... if they don't get to use it, sure, let the players have it.
But likewise, if the other members of the group are showing specific tendencies, defensively or offensively, that should become *known* as well. None of your PCs should feel comfortable sticking with the same tactics repeatedly because their enemies shouldn't feel comfortable with the idea of letting them.
What other "common" archers are there?
All of them. Thise twi aren't the best ones, to be honest. Zen archer monks, ranged inquisitors, ranged warpriests, etc are better, imo
Precise shot penalty, yes. Obstacle cover, yes (such as walls or clouds that conceal vision). Creature cover, no (the "blocking" rules don't really make any sense in many situations and there's already a penalty for firing into melee).
You are giving him, for free, at lvl 1, one of the stronger feats for archery, whi h has strong prereqs. Don't be surprised that he is too powerful if you house rule the game to make him more powerful.
The reason why Archery is so powerful is because archers are able to full attack all the time. Other fighters have to possition thenselves to fight. By giving up cover (and windwall and other obstacles), you are removing the need for him to maneuver to a more comfortable firing spot. That has nothing to do with Point Blank Master. That's because you are house ruling the game to factor archery, and you are not using thibgs,like Wind Wakl because it makes him move and do 1 single attack like everybody else.
Incidentally there is a reason will save targeting spells are call S o S. It's because it's because it ain't fun to be paralyzed, cursed, dominated. You have to sit there and do nothing through combats that you should be shining in. If you use it on him more than incense or twice he WILL feel victimized and you will have far more problems than banning a feat.Which is precisely why I didn't like the answers of "Target his will save so he can't do anything!"
There are things that target will and hibder him but still allow him to play, like slow. It also affect melee, but less than archers, because a 2h fighter with Power attack still can do a lot of damage in one hit, while archers rely more in doing a lot of hits. It will hurt TWF if you have those. Using the rule for cover helps too. That's an extra -4 unless he moves to a place with clear LOS. And I would not be affraid of using things like Wind Wall to force him to reposition. Melee already have to reposition vs lots of targets, such as flyby attacking monsters. It os not more unfair to force archer to move because eneny has Wind Wall than melee being forced to move because enemies have Fly
You have cover rules wrong. A miss is just a miss, not a "you hit the cover".I'm aware it's just a miss, that's my whole problem with it.
.
You are letting that your selective realism nitpicking of the rules help the player that is already more powerful. Yes, the game is not realistic 100%. Your archer is currently building time still bubbles where he can 5' into and spend 6 seconds worth of time full attacking a poor dude thst is 5' away frozen in time, despite the fact that combat is simultaneous. Same happens when you full attack in melee a target that is next to you only for a tenth of a second, such as a flying monster that charges you and moves away the next round. From that creature point of view, that's a continous movement, he is close to you a fraction of a second during a combat that is simultaneus. But you discharge 6 seconds worth of attacks in your turn.
The game use abstract rules to represent combat, and thus create situations where the simulation is unrealistic. By selectively cherry picking that soft cover is more unrealistic than full attack time bubbles, you are giving the archer player a 11 lvl feat for free at lvl 1 because realism, while still allowing him to create time bubbles to shoot for 6 seconds against chars that are frozen in time a mere half a second away, because selective realism.
Don't be surprised if that particular combo of selective realism ends unbalancing the game somewhat.
Point Blank Mastery(PBM) isn't a problem. It only come up on rare occasion where you need it. As archer you don't want to be using your bow where an enemy can hit you with full attack. At 6th level it's almost a waste of a feat. At higher levels its way more useful when you fight multiple monsters with reach but even then it doesn't come up that much.
Better to get clustered shot at 6th level. That's in the Ultimate Combat book that you are not using though. That feat allow you apply DR once for all your shots. This feat is one that gets me as GM. I mean no penalty so every thing is clustered. I'm thinking of applying -2 to hit when you use clustered shot.
Also there is the Snap Shot chain that gives a archer threat range of 10 for AoO. Now combine that with Combat Patrol. An archer could threat 20 feat at 10th level. I use this against my players. It has made some encounters very challenging.
"I want something that counters bows specifically, regardless of class. Just like shield users, 2H users, and dual-wielders have specific weaknesses."
I think what I'm not understanding is what, precisely, are the specific weaknesses associated with shield users or 2H users? What about people who use both? If I use a Naginata and a Heavy Darkwood Shield, do I have the weaknesses of both a shield user and a 2H weapon user, or neither?
Structurally Pathfinder is not a game that operates on techniques and countertechniques. If the antagonist has an axe there's no anti-axe technique or strategy, all the axe does is "reduce your HP" which is either something you're looking to avoid or something you're okay with from the start of the fight. The game generally rewards specialization, someone who devotes n feats to a thing will be generally more effective than someone who devotes n/2 feats to thing 1 and n/2 feats to thing 2. Certainly there will be situations in which a specific technique simply will not apply (e.g. you can't trip a snake) but strategies that often don't apply are generally ones people avoid investing in entirely. Since Pathfinder gets monthly infusions of new feats (and ideally these are interesting ones in order to get people to buy the books) a lot of time there will be a feat that shores up or eliminates a weakness of a style, and this buff is accounted for by feat investment necessary to, say, let a monk use flurry of blows with a Shield (Shield Focus, get buckler proficiency somehow, and take "Unhindering Shield" with a feat)
I mean, the Archer has a specific foil of "it's raining that the melee characters do not already. So what else are you looking for?
|
"I want something that counters bows specifically, regardless of class. Just like shield users, 2H users, and dual-wielders have specific weaknesses."How about the fact that the build eats all your feats?
Yeah there are 3 main "soft counters" to this:
1) soft cover which you negated with giving him improved precise shot,
2)Wealth management arrows and new bows cost a lot. You negated a good amount of this by allowing him the adaptive bow. Remember all arrows that are hits are not recoverable, and watch his arrow inventory. If he is machine gunning through 7 attacks a round and your average fight lasts 6 rounds, that's an entire stock of arrows Per fight. Most archers carry less than 15 stacks of arrows... so by the boss fight of a dungeon he should be rather low on ammo... once he runs out he's just another guy with a sword and a ton of useless feats. If he doesn't roll his 50% destruction check on each missed arrow when he's collecting the misses, call him out on it. Ranged characters don't need to be close up to deal damage, but should not have nearly as much disposable income to buy armor as a up close fighter after expenses on arrows.
3)social encounters where all of the required feats are useless.
Remember if you are trying to be realistic and not allow soft cover rules you also should not be building NPC so specifically to the weaknesses of the PCs. They should be built to make sense of the environment that they are found in. They Should mow many of these down. Many well built encounters will not even have the bad guys attack once, but use 2 spells from the spell caster that he can't use next encounter. By the same thought using 1/3 of the archers arrows but never hitting him is a win for most non boss fights.
I feel like the fact he is looking for people to endorse his opinion (as he was with his thread about the Roc if I remember correctly) has been abundantly clear from the start.
It's Balkoth. We go round and round with him on Blizzard's WoW forums just like this thread here.
Modify the feat so only the first ranged attack in a round doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
Here is a soft counter: Tanglefoot Bag
It is a touch attack, so even with his Dex, still easy enough to land.
Even if he makes the Reflex save to not be stuck, he still gets entangled for -2 BAB and -4 Dex. Given that he uses Dex to attack and for defence, that is an effective -4 BAB and -2 AC while entangled, which is for 2d4 rounds.
Touch of Fatigue is save or be fatigued, which gives you -2 Str and -2 Dex. This translates to -1 BAB and -1 AC. If you can stack a different fatigue effect, you can raise it to exhausted for -6 instead (-3 BAB and -3 AC). Non-lethal cold works.
The bag is range 10, and the spell is touch. Both easy to do if he wades into combat.
/cevah
PS: Sundering a bow in melee is a great thing to do as it deprives him of his weapon, and bows generally are easier to sunder (damage wise) than a metal weapon like a sword.
The real problem is that Archery is one of the few fighting styles in pathfinder where you can erase all of your weaknesses, while still maintaining full power & efficacy on a consistent basis.
Environmental factors and spells like "Wind Wall" can be beaten with a Cyclonic bow.
Damage Reduction can be near-bypassed with Clustered Shots.
Attacks of Opportunity can be made via Snap Shot, or an Interfering Bow.
Even attacking in melee range is handled by Point Blank Master, which removes yet another major weakness of the style.
So Archery is really only comparable to something like a Flying/Dimensional Dervish Pummeling Charge user. Even then, archery gets to ignore most "on-hit" effects as well as being safe from counterattack. The effective range for Archery is also far longer than either Dimensional Dervish or Pummeling Charge.
In other words, Archery is the most effective combat style, and after a point it becomes the hardest to shut down without relying on high level magic shenanigans (which can be an even worse problem).