| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider some kind of bonus to melee attacks made against opponents who are not armed to opportunely defend themselves.
If you are wielding a melee weapon, you can use that to parry and deflect attacks, and the menace you constitute to your enemy already does something to make it harder for him to attack you. If you are unarmed, or wielding a bow, it should be easier to strike you then someone who has his sword wielded.
A bow could probably be used to parry some blows, but to keep it simple I would consider flat-footed anyone who doesn't threaten you when you are attacking them in melee.
This would mean that archery IS powerful, but when the enemy manages to close in, you have to change tactics or you are probably in trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should also account for the damage of each attack. Melee attacks gain a Strength bnous. A longsword attack of a character with Str 16 deals 1d8+3 damage, which is 66% more damage than a longbow attack of a character with Dex 16. Three attacks is only 50% more than two attacks, and that third attack has a -10 penalty to hit.
I don't know, we have to see how large size is treated in p2e. Going by what we are used to, a larger size means greater strength usually stacked upon a larger base attack bonus, already representing some kind of physical supremacy.
By the way, do you remember Prince of Persia? In the original version at least, going against a guard without drawing out your sword meant that you were instantly oneshotted even if you had full life. That thing gave me the idea for my suggestion.
Trying to think in real-life terms: you are pretty screwed if you have a ranged weapon and someone closes in for melee combat. Part of the importance of melee weapons was their own ability to block blows or deter the opponent from opening themselves to a counterattack if they swung at you.
I would favor some combination of a defensive penalty versus melee, and less damage. An arrow should do less damage than an axe swing or mace smash.
Also not mentioned in the original post: ranged combatants also have the advantage of being able to interrupt a caster's concentration. And I agree: there should be more of a tradeoff for being the party's "artillery."
|
It's worth noting that full-attacks are less needed in Pathfinder v2, as the attacks are at +0/-5/-10 - the attack at -10 is sufficiently penalized that a lot of feedback I've heard is that you want to do something other than attack with it; people are looking into raising their shields, or the like. Means ranged combat is by definition going to be less powerful in PF v2 compared to PF v1, simply because the 'always full attacking' dynamic isn't as true.
This means it might be possible to have tradeoffs other than lower damage and the like - you could simply make interesting options for the extra action that isn't as needed available for melee, but not ranged. Stuff like raising your shield, potentially parrying blows, or even mechanics around readying actions to interrupt being better or only possible in melee. Argument could be that a readied action from a bow resolves after the provoking attack (i.e. Starfinder style) simply because it's harder to react as quickly when you need to shoot an arrow, compared to stab. No idea how realistic that is, of course - neither a trained archer nor a trained swordsman! Simply thinking of ways to differentiate archers and melee fighters without necessarily nerfing archery's damage - though I'm not opposed to that either, and the PFv2 equivalent of 1.5x STR to damage and the like should likely remain out of archery's hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In P2E, the new action economy removes full-attack dependency, but your ranged output is still more potent by default. Attack > attack > attack beats move > attack > attack if "attack" on each side is of equal value.
It helps that in PF2E, "attack" on each side of your equation is likely not of equal value and the 3rd attack made each round is generally of low value.
Say the 1st attack for both a melee and ranged character has 75% chance to hit. That means the Attack,Attack,Move character has a total damage output of (0.75*X+0.5*X) or 1.25 x their base damage per hit. The Attack,Attack,Attack character has a total damage output of (0.75*X+0.5*X+0.25*X) or 1.5 x their base damage per hit. This relationship stays true from 1st level all the way through 20th, unlike PF1E where the effective damage differential grew more and more as you gained levels.
At 11th level in Pathfinder 1E for example, the damage differential between moving and not moving was something like: 0.9 x base damage when moving vs. 1.95 x base damage when not moving (0.9+0.65+0.4). That's a way bigger drop off in damage for classes that have to move.
So just the change in action economy rules makes ranged combat less starkly advantageous.
Im interested in another possible benefit of ranged combat and that is a critical failure trigger. Some PCs and creatures are going to have trigger abilities that act out a reaction on a critical failure. Though, I cant imagine a ranged character ever being in harms way of such a reaction.
Now maybe the ranged character is out of reach but his allies are not. Would kind of suck if your ranged character was getting you ganked with all his errant shots...
They could just leave bow and light / heavy crossbow damage alone, and then raise the damage of all melee weapons. So Longsword goes to d10, rapier goes to d8 and dagger goes to d6.
Penalties and consequences for firing into melee have been minimized in later versions of D&D, but enforcing those and making the Precise Shot feat tax more mandatory can be another balancing factor.
Armor and natural armor could be given DR specifically against ranged attacks but not melee, as long as there was a way to handle that cleanly and intuitively without it bogging down the game and filling stat blocks with extra text. Maybe something as simple as your armor+enhancement bonus is universally your DR value against ranged?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make drawing and nocking an arrow an action (instead of a free action).
Done.
If "readying a shield" (which is literally just lifting your arm) is enough to qualify as an action, reaching into a quiver, pulling a long arrow out, putting it across your bow, and finding the string with the noc sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Fuzzypaws: Aww who's a fuzzy educated rodent?It sounds like your basic premise is you feel ranged combat should get to make more attacks, while melee should do more damage an per attack?
*wiggle!*
And yeah, that fits the flavor that has been built for archers in the last few editions of D&D, as well as popular movies like the LOTR movies, and popular video games like Tomb Raider and Horizon and Zelda as well. Archery that is faster but does less damage, melee attacks that are slower but do more damage is something that "feels" right to a lot of players. That's certainly the expectation players always seem to bring to my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure the gulf between archery and stabbing is closed by how one rarely will want to spend more than two actions attacking anyway, and everyone can move and then have two actions remaining which can be used to attack.
Big difference between archery and melee in PF1 was that the level 11 fighter under haste with rapid shot and manyshot can put six arrows in the air every turn while the level 11 fighter with a polearm and polearm feats can move and attack once then hope someone is still within range to full attack next turn.
The biggest problem with pf1 melee (besides the desperate need for reworking some prereq feats and condensing others into 1) was that there wasn't a pounce feat branching off of spring attack. If they'd condensed dodge and mobility into one feat and made a +6/8 BAB prereq feat that granted pounce off spring attack most of melee's issues would have been solved.
An important thing to consider with ranged weapons is that they typically have less damage than a two handed melee weapon. Not only are their damage dice lower (1d8 longbow vs 2d6 greatsword), but they don't get 1.5x strength to damage, and have to use separate stats for hit and damage. A melee character that has to move only gives up a single attack at -10, while having higher damage output than a ranged attacker for each attack that hits. Melee characters also don't provoke attacks of opportunity for fighting.
We'll need the full rules to know for sure, of course, but from what we know so far I see no reason to expect archery will be massively more powerful than melee combat.
How would you like ranged weapon combat, e.g. bows executed compared to melee so that each has distinct merit without one being flatly favoured?
Any attack beyond the first range increment require you to spend an action aiming at the target, in order to properly determine the angle to attack.
Any attack beyond five range increments arrives at the start of your next turn, and you make an attack roll against whatever creature is in the targeted space.
Ummmm the thing about this 0/-5/-10 is that it is Literally what we have Now w/ iterative attacks, right now Full BAB Full Attacks = 0/-5/-10/-15... so >.>
Now I totally understand how you can't currently do 2 attacks and move, but still, that full attack action isn't anything we're not seeing now, and people still do it. The thing I can see possibly changing this is that there's no swift actions, just a Reaction....
|
|
Ummmm the thing about this 0/-5/-10 is that it is Literally what we have Now w/ iterative attacks, right now Full BAB Full Attacks = 0/-5/-10/-15... so >.>
Now I totally understand how you can't currently do 2 attacks and move, but still, that full attack action isn't anything we're not seeing now, and people still do it.
The second attack matters a lot more than the third. Especially since the third has almost no chance to crit now.
Also, for archers, a Full Attack tends to be more like -2 (x2 from Manyshot)/-2/-7/-12. So 5 attacks rather than 3, and three of them at your full attack bonus minus only a small penalty.
Can I get a reminder on how Crits will work in 2e, I kinda forgot that part >.>
|
|
Can I get a reminder on how Crits will work in 2e, I kinda forgot that part >.>
You can get one on a 20 if you would've hit even without it being a natural 20...but aside from that you need to beat AC by 10.
So...lower attack bonuses drop DPR way more in this edition since a significant chunk of it is from crits on high attacks.
Perhaps there’s an “Aim” action that negate some penalties for shooting into melee instead of a precise shot feat?
I look forward how the new edition will tackle the issue.
Based on the Glass Canon Podcast, there don't appear to be any such penalties for shooting into melee any more (though there were implied to be 'soft cover' penalties). Also, based on that podcast slings seem not to require an action to load (though that could've been an error...I suspect it's true of bows either way), though crossbows do take such an action.
Ah ok, and with everyone having full BAB this go around, yeah I could see where that'd possibly be a bad thing, though I do really wanna see what kinda combat bonuses Martials will get to keep ahead of Full Casters having Full BAB and same number of actions a round.... Are they moving it off of attack and onto Damage? Are they giving Martials more front-loaded attacks per round?
|
|
Ah ok, and with everyone having full BAB this go around, yeah I could see where that'd possibly be a bad thing, though I do really wanna see what kinda combat bonuses Martials will get to keep ahead of Full Casters having Full BAB and same number of actions a round.... Are they moving it off of attack and onto Damage? Are they giving Martials more front-loaded attacks per round?
Well, how much attack bonus matters seems to be part of it. Fighters get Master Weapon Proficiency real early, for example, and eventually Legendary, while it's implied that Wizards may well never get above Trained.
That's only a +3 to-hit bonus for the Fighter, but since it's also a +3 Crit Range (at least usually) it matters more, and that's just what the Fighter gets free, and probably costs the Wizard something (since they're unlikely to have nay baseline Proficiency in swords or other martial weapons at all).
Barbarians have also been stated to get some sort of bonus from rage, and so on.
Really, I wouldn't assume the bonuses will necessarily be huge...but small bonuses matter more when every bonus also increases crit range on at least your first attack.
They're also attempting to reign in numbers creep from previous editions. You're going to have bounded accuracy ranges. No more insane to hit numbers so that you hit with 3 out 4 (or more) attacks on everything but a 1. A -10 penalty will basically never hit. You will never get enough bonuses to counteract it.
For example, if the system is designed with the intent that melee and ranged do comparable overall damage, but ranged get more weaker attacks and melee get fewer stronger attacks, some, like Fuzzypaws, seem happy with that. However, with what we've heard on Resonance, if "frontline" martials are still expected to take more damage yet have a similar pool to spend on healing benefits, others may feel ranged martials should DO less typical damage overall in exchange for TAKING less typical damage.
I've actually considered this issue with regards to front line characters, which is why a couple times I've proposed that healing effects should heal more to targets with more max HP. So a Cure Light Wounds, from the same caster at the same level, would heal more to a Fighter than to a Wizard. But every time I bring it up people poopoo it, so... *shrugs*
A secondary means of achieving the goal of keeping front line fighters from being screwed by resonance would be removing the bit where potions cost Resonance.
But I guess we'll have to wait and see if they already addressed this issue in a different way when we get more information.
I've actually considered this issue with regards to front line characters, which is why a couple times I've proposed that healing effects should heal more to targets with more max HP. So a Cure Light Wounds, from the same caster at the same level, would heal more to a Fighter than to a Wizard. But every time I bring it up people poopoo it, so... *shrugs*
For example, if the system is designed with the intent that melee and ranged do comparable overall damage, but ranged get more weaker attacks and melee get fewer stronger attacks, some, like Fuzzypaws, seem happy with that. However, with what we've heard on Resonance, if "frontline" martials are still expected to take more damage yet have a similar pool to spend on healing benefits, others may feel ranged martials should DO less typical damage overall in exchange for TAKING less typical damage.
Using the target's hit die instead of d6 is something I had already read about, and I liked it, but it gets messy when there are multiple classes with different dice involved.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
CLW: Heals 10% of the target's max HP +2d6
CMW: Heals 10% of the target's max HP +4d6
Etc
We probably need a blog post on Healing.
That HD healing system sounds needlessly fussy. /not signed
Make drawing and nocking an arrow an action (instead of a free action).
Done.
If "readying a shield" (which is literally just lifting your arm) is enough to qualify as an action, reaching into a quiver, pulling a long arrow out, putting it across your bow, and finding the string with the noc sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Readying a shield to block an attack isn't "just raising your arm," the attack could come at your legs, or even be a last-minute "feint" that requires proper attention to redirect your shield. Nocking an arrow has less of an active or varied application compared to blocking against an attack that can come from just about anywhere.
As for them making it an action to draw and nock arrows, I don't expect Paizo to nerf bows, and I honestly don't know what they will do to make throwing weapons and crossbows more viable in comparison, if anything.
|
I was thinking more along the lines of:
CLW: Heals 10% of the target's max HP +2d6
CMW: Heals 10% of the target's max HP +4d6
EtcWe probably need a blog post on Healing.
The best solution I've seen is still a line of spells that "Heals a target creature up to X hit points", where X is roughly 90% of an average adventurer's HP at the level the spell is gained.
An important thing to consider with ranged weapons is that they typically have less damage than a two handed melee weapon. Not only are their damage dice lower (1d8 longbow vs 2d6 greatsword), but they don't get 1.5x strength to damage, and have to use separate stats for hit and damage. A melee character that has to move only gives up a single attack at -10, while having higher damage output than a ranged attacker for each attack that hits. Melee characters also don't provoke attacks of opportunity for fighting.
We'll need the full rules to know for sure, of course, but from what we know so far I see no reason to expect archery will be massively more powerful than melee combat.
This was a balance issue because full attacks with outrageous to-hit bonuses made archers more likely to use abilities like Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot without quarrel or danger present. Archers had solid static modifiers that outweighed any need for damage dice being good, so now that damage dice will play more of a factor in calculating damage due to how magic weapons work this time around, bows might do less damage, but you still have to compensate for the added fidelity of being outside of an enemy's "threat" zone. On top of that, only certain enemies can attack you for making a ranged attack, which means archers are even more capable of handling themselves in melee, without investment no less, which was a big "balance point" that was present in PF1.
Archers might not be the most destructive niche in the game anymore, but they are still certainly the most safe niche to play as in regards to martials.
Make drawing and nocking an arrow an action (instead of a free action).
Done.
If "readying a shield" (which is literally just lifting your arm) is enough to qualify as an action, reaching into a quiver, pulling a long arrow out, putting it across your bow, and finding the string with the noc sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Then you run into the problem of drawing and nocking an arrow being an equivalent action to simply releasing the bowstring.
I believe in one of the blogs or play test that the short bow got the deadly quality. On a critical, it got double damage +1d10 damage. So it is likely a long bow will get the same. The 3rd attack at -10 is going to be the major drawback to archery unless there is some way of mitigating it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make drawing and nocking an arrow an action (instead of a free action).
Done.
If "readying a shield" (which is literally just lifting your arm) is enough to qualify as an action, reaching into a quiver, pulling a long arrow out, putting it across your bow, and finding the string with the noc sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Readying a shield to block an attack isn't "just raising your arm," the attack could come at your legs, or even be a last-minute "feint" that requires proper attention to redirect your shield. Nocking an arrow has less of an active or varied application compared to blocking against an attack that can come from just about anywhere.
As for them making it an action to draw and nock arrows, I don't expect Paizo to nerf bows, and I honestly don't know what they will do to make throwing weapons and crossbows more viable in comparison, if anything.
Readying a shield to block an incoming attack is almost purely a reflexive action. Most notably, it requires keeping your eyes peeled for incoming attacks.
Nocking an arrow requires properly orienting the fletching and LOOKING at the nock, taking your eyes off the combat, most every time. Further, you must seat the nock properly and hold it securely with your fingers before you can lift, draw, and aim. Yeah, there are YouTube videos of a guy shooting really fast, but there is absolutely NO WAY readying a shield should take MORE actions than loading a bow.
If "Ready Shield" is enough to warrant one of your limited three actions in a round, there is more than enough justification to do the same for nocking an arrow. You may not agree, based on purely rules balance or gameplay issues, but in the real world, one is much easier to do than the other, and the easier of the two is the one that doesn't require fine motor manipulation and taking your eyes off of the battle and looking down at your weapon.
Then you run into the problem of drawing and nocking an arrow being an equivalent action to simply releasing the bowstring.Make drawing and nocking an arrow an action (instead of a free action).
Done.
If "readying a shield" (which is literally just lifting your arm) is enough to qualify as an action, reaching into a quiver, pulling a long arrow out, putting it across your bow, and finding the string with the noc sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Sure, if "releasing the bowstring" equals "attacking". Aiming, especially a shot into a melee or at a distant target, takes considerably more time than just letting the arrow fly randomly.
Folks remember the actions are not just based on actual time it takes you to do something in real life. Actions are an abstraction of your turn. Raising a shield is not simply raising the shield. Its engaging in a defensive mode and preparing to defend yourself. Your real world experience may not be able to grok that, but its a game and not a real world sim.