| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You shoot twice in blindingly fast succession. Make two
Strikes, each against a separate target and with a –2 penalty.
That's straightforward, Attacks are -2/-2 then -10 if you like.
You can quickly fire multiple shots with greater control. When
you use Double Shot, you can make the attacks against the
same target. You can add an additional action to Double Shot
to make three ranged Strikes instead of two. If you do, the
penalty is –4.
The first time I read this I thought, Attacks are -4/-4/-4, but now that I re-read it, it doesn't say that. It doesn't specify whether the -4 is for the third shot after doing your Double Shot -2/-2 and then adding a third at -4, or if all three attacks go to -4.
If you read it like "add an additional action to Double Shot," then that says you're doing Double Shot which is -2/-2 and adding a third at -4.
If you read it like "add an action to make three" and "the penalty is -4" it could say all three are at -4.
I wish it wasn't written this way. Statistically, both feats suck if you plug them into Draco18s' attack routine calculator vs. Exacting Strike, all with a d8 propulsive and calculating a d10 extra on critical (assuming composite longbow).
1) Exacting Strike Fighter L6: 0/-5/-5* (blue)
2) Shot -2/-2/-4 Fighter L6: -2/-2/-4 (red)
3) Shot -4/-4/-4 Fighter L6: -4/-4/-4 (green)
Obviously 2 > 3, but in every level scenario -4 to +4, the Exacting Strike Fighter outdamages both 2 and 3. Double Shot and Triple Shot are horrible. Exacting Strike works for Melee and Ranged Strikes. Double Shot doesn't work against 1 target, has to be different targets. Double and Triple take two feats and don't surpass the math of Exacting Strike regardless of -2/-2/-4 or -4/-4/-4.
So, this is partly a question, how are people reading the Triple Shot sequence? I'm also ranting that Exacting Strike is superior regardless.
I read it as replacing the -2 penalty with a -4 - and therefore it applies to all three shots.
This feat would be infinitely more useful at -2/-2/-4, as with three shots at -4 the cases where its actually an improvement over just shooting are... limited.
But thats not how I read it.
Unfortunately, even at -2/-2/-4, it does less damage than a standard three shot Exacting Strike sequence. Exacting Strike also has the substantial benefit of helping you when you're trying to down one foe at a time at levels 1-5 (before L6 Triple Shot lets you target all shots at one foe), which is frankly what you want to do more often than not or at least have that option if you miss.
Two feats to get you -2/-2 on a single target is horrible when the calculator shows that 0/-5 and -2/-2 are neck and neck on damage. 0/-5 requires no feats.
If you look at the link to the screenshot of the calculator, you'll see that "3 attacks at -4" is inferior to the Exacting Strike sequence. So it is actually shabby, doubly so when you consider you wasted two feats to achieve it.
|
I don't understand your spreadsheet whiteboard but I think something about how you're looking at this is a bit crooked.
Forgive my analysis if I'm somehow mistaken on what is going on here but I'm failing to see how two feats for a massively helpful "evening out" of the MAP is in any way bad.
Three shots, 1 Action Strikes Each: 0/-5/-10
-Total Penalties applied = -15
Three shots, 2 Action Double Shot & 1 Strike: -2/-2/-10
-Total Penalties applied = -14
Three shots, 3 Action Tripple Shot: -4/-4/-4
Total Penalties applied = -12
As far as I can tell the only "downside" of using these is that your first Attack in the sequence is going to be less accurate versus using some other option but once you add the second and third attacks your accuracy comes out WAY ahead if you're doing the whole "turret" thing which is what the feat is designed for in the first place.
Even with exacting strike mixed in you'd still be looking at a situation that is at BEST doing 0/-5/-5 and that assumes that the second attack MISSES its target so you can follow up with another attack that is, again, less accurate than it could be with Triple Shot.
Forgive my analysis if I'm somehow mistaken on what is going on here
The links in the post are to the P2 damage calculator. It proves that the Exacting Strike combo does more damage than Triple Shot. It's a lot of reading to figure out how to use it, but I recommend digging in for a half hour to understand how your builds will perform.
Essentially, the first two shots of ES 0/-5 are not only higher accuracy than -4/-4, they're more likely to score a crit and add in bow d10 crit damage. TS does better with shot3 at -4, but it's marginally better than ES's -5 if shot2 misses, and if ES is at -10 due to a hit, well... that means it already scored a hit (likely 2) which is big.
TLDR - In no scenarios does TS outperform ES.
|
|
No offense to you spreadsheet folks but I'm still not seeing it.
The whole thing hinges not only getting a Crit on the first attack to push you ahead on the DPR estimations but in order to keep your accuracy from TOTALLY hitting the floor, you need to miss with the second attack just so you can get ANOTHER attack at the same Penalty as the one you just missed with.
All this versus three attacks that are less likely to crit/hit than the first attack, but are more accurate than the 2nd or 3rd attacks for the ES routine regardless of if you hit/miss.
So the idea here is that in the long-game for 100,000 simulated rolls the more bursty crit + miss method of ES comes out ahead on average over the method that hands significantly more actual hits?
No offense to you spreadsheet folks but I'm still not seeing it.
The whole thing hinges not only getting a Crit on the first attack to push you ahead on the DPR estimations but in order to keep your accuracy from TOTALLY hitting the floor, you need to miss with the second attack just so you can get ANOTHER attack at the same Penalty as the one you just missed with.
All this versus three attacks that are less likely to crit/hit than the first attack, but are more accurate than the 2nd or 3rd attacks for the ES routine regardless of if you hit/miss.
So the idea here is that in the long-game for 100,000 simulated rolls the more bursty crit + miss method of ES comes out ahead on average over the method that hands significantly more actual hits?
It's not like crits are particularly rare, you will usually see a couple a session as a fighter. These statistics are certainly applicable over the number rolls any PC is likely to make. You might feel better making the three shots at -4 but more often than not you'll be doing less damage.
Is it truly that hard to believe Paizo made some bad feats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You shoot twice in blindingly fast succession. Make two
Strikes, each against a separate target and with a –2 penalty.You can quickly fire multiple shots with greater control. When
you use Double Shot, you can make the attacks against the
same target. You can add an additional action to Double Shot
to make three ranged Strikes instead of two. If you do, the
penalty is –4.
As for how Triple Shot works, just do the replacement that Triple Shot specifies on the Double Shot rules text.
You shoot
Strikes,twicethrice in blindingly fast succession. Maketwothreeeach against a separate target andwith a–2-4 penalty.
As for whether that is a good choice to use, that depends on a lot of other circumstances.
Forgive my analysis if I'm somehow mistaken on what is going on hereThe links in the post are to the P2 damage calculator. It proves that the Exacting Strike combo does more damage than Triple Shot. It's a lot of reading to figure out how to use it, but I recommend digging in for a half hour to understand how your builds will perform.
Essentially, the first two shots of ES 0/-5 are not only higher accuracy than -4/-4, they're more likely to score a crit and add in bow d10 crit damage. TS does better with shot3 at -4, but it's marginally better than ES's -5 if shot2 misses, and if ES is at -10 due to a hit, well... that means it already scored a hit (likely 2) which is big.
TLDR - In no scenarios does TS outperform ES.
This is not true.
TS outperforms ES when you have high chances to hit. In a party with quite some buff/debuff or if you face low level enemies TS will be a better choice than ES.For me, it's very simple:
- If you can only afford one feat, you can take DS or ES (and I think you should take ES).
- If you can afford 2 feats, take DS and TS as DS with TS is really good and even if you have 3 actions TS is not so much behind ES.
- If you can afford 3 feats, take all 3.
PS: You shouldn't play a bow Fighter. If a class and its options isn't appealing to you, it's better to move on than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Forgive my analysis if I'm somehow mistaken on what is going on hereThe links in the post are to the P2 damage calculator. It proves that the Exacting Strike combo does more damage than Triple Shot. It's a lot of reading to figure out how to use it, but I recommend digging in for a half hour to understand how your builds will perform.
Essentially, the first two shots of ES 0/-5 are not only higher accuracy than -4/-4, they're more likely to score a crit and add in bow d10 crit damage. TS does better with shot3 at -4, but it's marginally better than ES's -5 if shot2 misses, and if ES is at -10 due to a hit, well... that means it already scored a hit (likely 2) which is big.
TLDR - In no scenarios does TS outperform ES.
This is not true.
TS outperforms ES when you have high chances to hit. In a party with quite some buff/debuff or if you face low level enemies TS will be a better choice than ES.
For me, it's very simple:
- If you can only afford one feat, you can take DS or ES (and I think you should take ES).
- If you can afford 2 feats, take DS and TS as DS with TS is really good and even if you have 3 actions TS is not so much behind ES.
- If you can afford 3 feats, take all 3.PS: You shouldn't play a bow Fighter. If a class and its options isn't appealing to you, it's better to move on than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Why shouldn't you play a bow Fighter just because you think one of the ways to do it is a trap option? Just grab Exacting Strike and some of the other ranged options. Double Shot and Triple Shot are hardly the only things a bow user might like in Fighter.
Why shouldn't you play a bow Fighter just because you think one of the ways to do it is a trap option? Just grab Exacting Strike and some of the other ranged options. Double Shot and Triple Shot are hardly the only things a bow user might like in Fighter.
This is not the only discussion Plane started to criticize the bow Fighter feats. So, at some point, it's better to move on. Not every class/build is for everyone.