# Improved Rapid Shot feat



## two (Jan 5, 2004)

From CW, removes the -2 from RS, low PR's, easy to get, downside?

Fighter with Rapid Shot+Improved Rapid = 1 free attack during a full attack, equivalent to a +3 weapon enhancement bonus (Speed), but better since they are feats and can't be removed (as stack with a weapon of Speed if you want to get sick about it).  Of course, you do have to use up precious feats for this, but not money.

I'm thinking this is getting to be near or at the upper reaches of feat-power.

Burn 2 feats for the equivalent of a Weapon of Speed?

Fighter 1:  +1 bow of speed (32K) and 2 free feats to spend, +1 attack.
Fighter 2:  +4 bow (32K) and 2 feats used, +1 attack, +3 to hit, +3 damage.

I won't even go to the:

Fighter 2:  +1 bow of speed (32K) and 2 feats used, +2 attacks, or
Fighter 2:  +1 bow and 2 feats used, spend 32K on other equipment, +1 attack. (note that this other gold spend could be on items that grant feats).

When you are getting 3-4-5-6 bow shots a round, and have a -2 penalty removed from them all, the increase in per-round damage is very significant.

Am I over-reacting?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2004)

No, when the feat was first presented in Dragon a few years back, many people thought it was a very powerful feat.  I don't think that has changed.


----------



## two (Jan 5, 2004)

*Ah, good to know*

Glad I'm not smoking some of Nor. Cali's finest, sticky and brown and all that.

Seemed a little whack; however, it's rather subtle.  It's not like power attack, where BOOM you get an additional 12 points of damage on an attack.  It's hard to spot a hit that would not have been a hit if the -2 had been applied.  If you get my drift?  My feeling is, some GM's might not think it's that big a deal (what's -2 here or there?), while the numbers indicate different.

That said, I've not done the math.  My gut feeling is, the feat in the hands of a 10th level dedicated archer is worth an extra hit every 2 round or so, thus worth about 15 points of damage every other round, or 7 a round.  More for heavier hitters, less for less.  Ramps up wonderfully, of course.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2004)

Basically it's a feat that gives +2 to hit, since it negates the -2 penalty.  It makes it so Rapid Shot is a no brainer, it's always going to be used in a full round attack.


----------



## LordAO (Jan 5, 2004)

Yeah I don't like this feat either. It makes it so that there is no reason not to use Rapid Shot. You might as well call it the "I always get an extra attack at my highest attack bonus feat." To me, it is as bad as an "Improved Power Attack" feat that makes you always get the damage bonus without the attack penalty.

I know I remember seeing a version that lets you make two extra attacks at you highest attack bonus, but all attacks get a -4 penalty. 

I like that alot better. And next time I DM, that will be how I rule it.


----------



## Korak (Jan 5, 2004)

In my opinion, this feat is hardly overpowered.  I can run some hard numbers later when I'm at home, but in my experience playing with melee builds in 3.5 and plugging them into my spreadsheets for avg damage; archery always comes in behind 2-handers for raw output.  A capped str bonus to damage, no power attack, and the removal of bow and arrow enchantment stacking puts ranged attacks at a significant penalty relative to two handed weapons.  This gets exaggerated when facing opponents with DR, or worse yet, with deflects arrows which now automatically removes the first hit per round.  Give the archers their extra attack for 2 feats... they'll need it.


----------



## The Souljourner (Jan 5, 2004)

I think you're way overreacting.  When I was using an archer with Rapid Shot, I always used it in a full attack anyway.  It's been proven that the only time you don't want to use Rapid Shot is when you need an 18 or 19 to hit without it.  That should be pretty rare.

So what we're talking about is a feat that is the third in a chain which gives you +2 to hit while full attacking.  What you're saying is equivalent to "But the fighter will never attack without using  Greater Weapon Focus!"  Why is that a surprise?  That's the point!

With all the other feats available with ranged weapons, I don't think this one will be a no brainer.  In order to really take advantage of this feat, you have to spend a total of 4 feats on ranged combat - precise shot, point blank shot, rapid shot, improved rapid shot.  That's a heck of a lot of investment to be able to get one extra attack with a ranged weapon, and you haven't even taken weapon focus yet.

Heck, compare it to plain old Precise Shot.  That's negating a -4 penalty... twice the benefit, and it only has one prerequisite.

So... I really don't see the problem.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Eltern (Jan 5, 2004)

It's like Flurry of Blows

Anyone got a problem with -that-?

Eltern


----------



## LordAO (Jan 6, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> I think you're way overreacting.  When I was using an archer with Rapid Shot, I always used it in a full attack anyway.  It's been proven that the only time you don't want to use Rapid Shot is when you need an 18 or 19 to hit without it.  That should be pretty rare.
> 
> So what we're talking about is a feat that is the third in a chain which gives you +2 to hit while full attacking.  What you're saying is equivalent to "But the fighter will never attack without using  Greater Weapon Focus!"  Why is that a surprise?  That's the point!




Weapon focus is a feat that's meant to apply all the time (when using that weapon, obviously). And since it is something that applies almost all the time, the bonus it gives is quite small. Rapid Shot was clearly designed with a choice in mind. Like Power Attack, it should not always be used. It's meant to be a strategic feat, not a "no-brainer."

And greater Weapon Focus is an Epic Feat, BTW. This feat is basically the same thing as Greater Weapon Focus (a +2 to attacks), and it's a non-epic feat. Something to think about.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> With all the other feats available with ranged weapons, I don't think this one will be a no brainer.  In order to really take advantage of this feat, you have to spend a total of 4 feats on ranged combat - precise shot, point blank shot, rapid shot, improved rapid shot.  That's a heck of a lot of investment to be able to get one extra attack with a ranged weapon, and you haven't even taken weapon focus yet.




Yes that's true. But archery also has alot of innate advantages over melee that should not be ignored. The fact that it has disadvantages is quite sensible. The fact that you can eliminate those disadvantages with a small number of feat purchases is quite generous, IMHO. 

I don't understand all of the whining over archery being picked on. As both a player and a DM I can tell you that I have seen time and time again the enormous benefits it offers. Even with the new 3.5 rules archers in our game have done easily as well as melee. There are benefits and drawbacks to both, of course. And that's how it should be.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Heck, compare it to plain old Precise Shot.  That's negating a -4 penalty... twice the benefit, and it only has one prerequisite.




Precise Shot only matters in a specific situation (while firing into a melee). That doesn't happen all the time (or even most of the time). And you won't be getting a +4 to hit on every attack just because you have that feat. It is merely cancelling a penalty that occasionaly comes into play.

Please don't get the impression that I am one of those archery haters. I'm not. God, I love archery. I simply think that, in my honest, humble opinion, the Improved Rapid Shot feat is a little bit too powerful as written. But it's no biggie. I won't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## jaults (Jan 6, 2004)

In 3.5, Greater Weapon Focus is +1 to attack with selected weapon, and is not epic.

Jason


----------



## LordAO (Jan 6, 2004)

jaults said:
			
		

> In 3.5, Greater Weapon Focus is +1 to attack with selected weapon, and is not epic.
> 
> Jason




Oops. You're right. Sorry, I'm still stuck in the limbo somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5 edition.


----------



## The Souljourner (Jan 6, 2004)

LordAO said:
			
		

> Weapon focus is a feat that's meant to apply all the time (when using that weapon, obviously). And since it is something that applies almost all the time, the bonus it gives is quite small. Rapid Shot was clearly designed with a choice in mind. Like Power Attack, it should not always be used. It's meant to be a strategic feat, not a "no-brainer."




Improved Rapid shot is meant to apply all the time (at least when you're using rapid shot).  And since it is something that applies almost all  the time, the bonus it gives is quite small, though not as small as weapon focus, since it requires two other feats as prerequisites, plus, it is only negating a penalty instead of giving an actual bonus.



			
				LordAO said:
			
		

> The fact that you can eliminate those disadvantages with a small number of feat purchases is quite generous, IMHO.




Improved Precise shot requires Dex 19, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11, which you need to negate the cover penalty you almost always get when using a ranged weapon to shoot past your allies into combat, which in my experience is about 90% of the time.  I wouldn't call that a small number of feat purchases nor an easy feat chain to complete.  That's what you need to truly eliminate the disadvantages of using a bow, though that still doesn't give you the ability to threaten squares with it, nor does it stop you from provoking attacks of opportunity when you use it.



			
				LordAO said:
			
		

> Precise Shot only matters in a specific situation (while firing into a melee). That doesn't happen all the time (or even most of the time).




Do you not have melee fighters in your groups?  Do you never fight indoors?  Firing into melee is like 90% of what I've seen in 3.0 and 3.5.  I should know, I played an Order of the Bow Initiate for a year from level 1 to level 10.



			
				LordAO said:
			
		

> And you won't be getting a +4 to hit on every attack just because you have that feat. It is merely cancelling a penalty that occasionaly comes into play.




You won't be getting +2 to hit on every attack just because you have Improved Precise Shot.  It is merely cancelling a penalty that comes into play about as often as firing into melee.  There have been plenty of times when I've needed to move and shoot, or when I had to ready an attack, etc etc etc, where I couldn't use rapid shot.  Yes, it makes using the rapid shot ability during a full attack a no brainer, but since it was a no brainer 95% of the time before you spent an extra feat on it, I don't think it's a big deal to throw the math out of the equation and just say "go ahead and use it all the time".

-The Souljourner


----------



## LordAO (Jan 6, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Do you not have melee fighters in your groups?  Do you never fight indoors?  Firing into melee is like 90% of what I've seen in 3.0 and 3.5.  I should know, I played an Order of the Bow Initiate for a year from level 1 to level 10.




No need to be condescedning.   Just because we have a difference in opinion doesn't mean I don't know what the hell I'm talking about! Yes, of course we've had melee fighters in our groups. And plenty of archers too. I've played an Arcane Archer for some time before, before there was such a thing as Improved Precise Shot or Greater Rapid Shot, so I know very well what advantages/disadvantages archers have, before that even had all the new toys of the 3.5 edition.

And no, in my experience Precise Shot isn't neded 90% of the time. Of course, I also do alot of sniping as an archer, so that makes a considerable difference. I spent much of my time as an archer not shooting the enemies that were already meeting their doom with our melee characters, but rather using my range to pick off distant threats (spellcasters, enemy archers, etc) and new threats as they emerged. Sure, I had and used Precise Shot, and it was a very nice pick, but it hardly came into play 90% of the time. Just a difference in playing style I guess.

And so rapid Shot gets rid of the -4 penalty? Thats a totally different thing than giving a bonus. It's not making you more powerful, it's simply making you even. That is a unique penalty of ranged attacks that melee never has to deal with. It simply gets rid of it. An Archer with Precise Shot is evening the score with a melee character, an Archer with Rapid Shot is gaining a considerable advantage over him. You are comparing apples and oranges here. They are two totally different things.

Rapid Shot itself is a huge advantage of archery. Melee characters don't get a feat that lets them make extra attacks like that. And in real life one can swing a sword much more rapidly than an archer can shoot a bow. Of course I realize this isn't real life, but IMHO it's a huge blessing that Archers can even get Rapid Shot to begin with. Getting it for "free" is overkill, IMO. Maybe it isn't that big of a deal. it takes quite a few feats to get, as you said, and there are always plenty of other feats to choose from. Maybe I would be happier if there were a "Rapid Swing" for melee. In either case I was simply contributing my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree with it.


----------



## green slime (Jan 6, 2004)

Improved Rapid Shot is too good, IMO.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 6, 2004)

> Melee characters don't get a feat that lets them make extra attacks like that




Unless you count two-weapon fighting, cleave, greater two-weapon fighting, great cleave, and the like.


----------



## two (Jan 6, 2004)

*obvious*



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Unless you count two-weapon fighting, cleave, greater two-weapon fighting, great cleave, and the like.





Just to state the extremely obvious:

PC's use cleave 5% of the time.  Great cleave 5% of the time.  2-weapon fighting 40% of the time (maybe, as you need to be next to the bad guy and then do a full attack).  Ditto Greater 2-weapon fighting.

PC's use Rapid Shot 90% of the time -- basically, every round after the initial round of "getting out the bow and moving behind a tank or two."


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 6, 2004)

Rapid Shot and Improved Rapid Shot are also far more limited than the Two-Weapon Fighting chain.

Personally, I'd take a second extra shot with -4 penalties over removing the penalty from Rapid Shot every time, so I think the feat works better as written.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 6, 2004)

The power of this feat is very much a factor of campaign design. It can not be acurately analyzed without delving into how the DM designs encounters.

Why?

Because the difference in value between +24/+24/+19/+14 and +26/+26/+21/+16 depends upon the AC of your foes, your expected damage, etc ... If all your foes have ACs of 16 or less, there isn't really a difference between the two situations. If it won't really have an effect, it can't be overpowered. If your foes have ACs in the low 30s, the difference in expected damage is going to be significant. Increasing average damage per round from 40 points to 50 points would be a big deal.

As a result, the only way that you can tell if this feat is balanced in your game is to look at a few sample combats and try it out. Pay attention ot the math behind the scenes - look at the expected results, not just the average results. Pay attention to when the feat actually made a difference. Once you get a feel for the situation, you'll be able to decide whether it is balanced in your game.


----------



## feydras (Jan 18, 2004)

No ones mentioned that Improved Rapid Shot has Many Shot as a prerequisite.  I don't have my CWH book with me but i am 95% sure this is true as it is the thing that is preventing me from choosing the feat.  I hate Many Shot and believe it is totatally worthless.

So, if you are an archer and got the Many Shot feat for free then the ability to buy Improved Rapid Shot is a consilation prize.  If you are not a ranger, then add that up as yet another prerequisite to buy.  Yes, IRS is great, but worth burning all those feats?  Tough choice, especially with so many neat new archery feats in the Complete Warrior's Handbook.

Am i missing something, or am i the only person who noticed the Many Shot prerequisite?

- feydras


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 23, 2004)

feydras said:
			
		

> Am i missing something, or am i the only person who noticed the Many Shot prerequisite?




Nope, you've got it right, feydras. I was just going to post a similar thread and am glad I Searched first. Here's the Complete Warrior version:

Improved Rapid Shot [General]
You are an expert at firing weapons with exceptional speed.
Prerequisites: Manyshot, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot. (Because of the prereqs for those it should also technically list Dex 17 and BAB +6 as well.)
Benefit: When using the Rapid Shot feat, you may ignore the -2 penalty on all your ranged attack rolls.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Rapid Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

And I think Eltern also brought up a good point: Rapid Shot with Improved Rapid Shot is for Archery what the 3.5 Flurry of Blows has become for Monks. Now, from a strictly mechanical comparison it's not identical as it's possible to get IRS at 6th level while a Monk's FoB penalty doesn't disappear until 9th, but it's a pretty good analogy otherwise, IMO. If no one has problems with a 9th level Monk, would they feel better about IRS with a Prereq of BAB +9?

Any math heads wanna step in here and give us a lot of number crunching? Lots of people (including SKR) were had some pretty intense analyses when comparing RS/IRS vs 2HF & 2WF for 3.0.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 23, 2004)

Some more issues to consider:

3.5 Archery tends to do less damage than melee combat. A feat that bumps archery up a bit is not necessarily a bad thing.

Melee attacks can exchange a bonus to hit for a bonus to damage (via the common feat, power attack). Archery (with the exception of manysnot which may not be combined with rapid shot) can not make this type of exchange ... so the extra amount by which you hit is completely irrelevant. Hitting by 2 or hitting by 12 is the same thing for any given hit.

Archers face an eatra limitation: arrows. They can only have so many arrows at the ready at a given time. Each quiver holds 20 arrows. If an archer is firing off 5 arrows per round, he goes through a quiver in 4 rds. In long battles, the arrows may run out before the enemies do ... Heck, an _efficient quiver_ only holds 60 arrows. Sure, a bag of holding can carry thousands of arrows rather easily, but fetching those arrows in combat can be a hassle. Also, against certain foes, having the right type of arrow on hand may prove difficult. Getting silver, cold-iron and adamantine arrows is easier than getting a melee weapon made of the same material, but you tend to run out of them quickly if you hit a pocket of monsters with that type of DR.

Archery faces penalties that rarely, if ever, effect melee fighters: Cover, range and the penalty for shooting into melee combat. Cover and vs. melee penalties can be negated by feats, but that is not without cost.


----------



## Elric (Jan 23, 2004)

I agree with jgsugden.  I would also like to point out that Rapid Shot is almost always used when you have base attack +5 or less.  By the time you get to +11, though, -2 to hit on 3 attacks may not be worth an extra attack at a -2 penalty against relatively tough opponents.  Improved Rapid Shot makes it so that your Rapid Shot feat never becomes useless against strong foes at high levels.  

If you were only allowed to take Weapon Focus: Longbow or Improved Rapid Shot, which one would you take?  If you find that Manyshot is a useless feat, Weapon Focus is probably better unless you are a ranger.  Of course, the problem is power creep- your character can get both of these feats and that may be overpowered.


----------



## Nail (Jan 23, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> If no one has problems with a 9th level Monk, would they feel better about IRS with a Prereq of BAB +9?



The difficulty with the 9th level Monk analogy is that a monk and an archer _are not_ comparable, really. One has to run up and engage in melee, the other does not.  The risk/reward ratio is not equal.

"Removing the penalty" is a bonus, and at ACs appropriate for PCs of that level, it is significant.  It's true that some of the monsters in the MM in the CR 6 - 9 range have very low ACs (14-16), but that neglects a major type of villian: humanoids with class levels.  What's the AC of that 5th level Lizard folk attacking them?  How about the ever-deadly halfling ninjas?  

Still, this bears some numerical scrutiny.  I'm out of time today....anyone else?


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 23, 2004)

As a side effect of the Manyshot prerequisite, only rangers or fighters can get IRS at 6th level (when they gain 2 feats each, effectively) as single class characters. All other classes have to wait until 9th.


----------



## Nail (Jan 23, 2004)

Elric said:
			
		

> .... By the time you get to +11, though, -2 to hit on 3 attacks may not be worth an extra attack at a -2 penalty against relatively tough opponents.



Errr...nope. 

It scales quite nicely with level.  In fact, you may notice that AC does not keep up with CR, by any stretch.  _Especially_ at CR 11+.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 23, 2004)

I hate to say it (because I love to use math to prove my points), but any number bashing on the efficiency of IRS will be fairly useless. So many campaign and character specific issues will have a dramatic effect on the subject.

I think the thing to do is to start keeping track of the efficiency of one archer in a game. If the character has IRS, see how many time he hits by 2 or less (or confirms a crit by 2 or less) on a rapid attack. If he doesn't have it, see how many times he would have hit if he did have IRS. That'll give you an indication of the value of the feat in your campaign setting.


----------



## Elric (Jan 23, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Errr...nope.
> 
> It scales quite nicely with level.  In fact, you may notice that AC does not keep up with CR, by any stretch.  _Especially_ at CR 11+.




That may be the case for you, but I have a rat-bastard DM!


----------



## Crothian (Jan 23, 2004)

really it depends on the creatures, dragons have a fair AC for their CR most the time as do some other creatures.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 24, 2004)

My Ranger is almost lvl 5 now, and I am having a hard time deciding what feat to pick at lvl 6...  It is a toss up between IRS and IFE.  I was going to go with IFE as it is applied to all your favored enemies, but now ya'll got me considering getting IRS first, heh...  Decissions, decissions...

I also think Manyshot kind of sucks too.  The only use I see for it is if you need/want to fire and move, otherwise there is no point to ever use MS over RS.  Unless I am missing something...?


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 24, 2004)

Manyshot is much better for disrupting enemy spellcasters than Rapid Shot will ever hope to be. Heck, whenever you're readying an action, you'll be glad you had manyshot.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 24, 2004)

Forgot to mention: Manyshot is good in those situations when you're almost gaurnteed to hit with your first and second attack, but your third and fourth aren't as well off. You can instead fire 4 attacks at -6 and still be fairly certain of hitting.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 24, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> The difficulty with the 9th level Monk analogy is that a monk and an archer _are not_ comparable, really. One has to run up and engage in melee, the other does not.  The risk/reward ratio is not equal.




Maybe, but the absolute mechanics _are_! With a Full Attack Action you're getting an extra attack at your highest attack bonus with a -2 penalty to all attacks, and with IRS or by reaching the 9th monk level that penalty disappears for both. 2WF with a light offhand weapon also gives this mechanic. Anyone feel it would be overpowered to allow a feat in the 2WF chain that removes the -2 penalty at 9th level? Anyone? Have any math to back that up? I don't really know, and I'm curious. Convince me! 

Now, I don't want to sidetrack this into a "is melee balanced with archery" debate, but I think some of those points have a place in this discussion. *jgsugden* brought up a good one with:



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> Melee attacks can exchange a bonus to hit for a bonus to damage (via the common feat, power attack). Archery (with the exception of manyshot which may not be combined with rapid shot) cannot make this type of exchange ... so the extra amount by which you hit is completely irrelevant. Hitting by 2 or hitting by 12 is the same thing for any given hit.




If doing as much damage as possible is the ultimate goal of a warrior, then the Archer has, currently, no real paths to attain that goal for the advantages he gets by being in the back row. Those advantages are significant, and I agree that he should not match the damage output (on average) of the Melee Master. As you say, *Nail*, the risk ratio is out of whack. But I do believe the Archer should be allowed to excel in at least one part of the damage equation; currently the Melee Master beats him out every time they aren't actually equal. 

Both are limited by their weapon damage. For a Medium creature a 1d8 from a longbow is respectable, however with no additional feat investment the Melee Master can use his same two hands to do far more with his Greatsword at 2d6.

Both can put their Strength bonus to good effect, the Melee Master automatically, and the Archer with a composite longbow of the appropriate pull. However, in the thick of combat the Melee Master benefits twofold (both attack and damage) from any caster aiding him with Strength enhancing effects, while the Archer gains neither (increasing his Dex will improve his attack, but unless he gets a bow with a stronger pull, he's not going to be doing any extra damage with Stength enhancement magic). Strength penalties hurt the Melee Master in both attack and damage as well, but if the Archer's Strength drops below the bow's pull he suffers the same damage penalty as the Melee Master and gets to couple that with a -2 for no longer being able to effectively use his bow.

Both can increase the number of attacks they have each round. The Melee Master can choose 2WF with a similar penalty as the Archer's Rapid Shot, and with the investment of more feats can reach up to 8 attacks per round (setting aside for the moment whether it's a suboptimal or even viable fighting style, the system allows for the possibility). Only the Melee Master, however has access to feats like Cleave, and later on, Whirlwind, that give free attacks (whether Standard or Full Attack Actions) that the Archer cannot access at all. (Improved Trip seems like it should be mentioned here, but I'm not sure exactly how. )

When faced with DR, while both could have the appropriate weapon type in their bag 'o weapons, the Archer can only carry around so many arrows (since they break after nearly every shot), and even if the Archer has some arrows of the right material they likely don't have more than a handful in most situations. Furthermore, Archers don't have access to anything like Power Attack (barring the Peerless Archer's PrC ability) to help them overcome DR. Before 3.5 came out I was under the impression Manyshot was an attempt to mitigate some of this difficulty against DR, since multiple arrows are fired with a single attack, but that didn't pan out when I got the books and saw the feat description, so another advantage for the Melee Master. 

Finally, both can increase the likelihood they're attacks will actually hit. Both have access to similar aids, be they magical weapons, the Weapon Focus feats, etc. While Archers do have a couple versions of Bracers of Archery in the DMG, and can increase their total attack bonus with Dexterity enhancing items, Melee Masters can do the same with Strength enhancing items and at the same time get the added benefit of doing extra damage. While those same Strength items would benefit an Archer, it's only after they find a bow with a stronger pull to take advantage of it. Therefore the Archer ends up spending more than twice as much (when you include the bow cost) on items as the Melee Master for the same increases to attack and damage. Still, Bracers of Archery are the one thing the Archer has that the Melee Master can't exactly match, so I guess I have to retract my statement from above: the Archer does actually have something the Melee Master doesn't/can't have, IF he has the Bracers. 

When all is said and done, I've always thought of the Archer as a marksman. Of all those things I just got done comparing, I think the Melee Master should keep his advantages with all of them...all but the last. Getting a better total attack bonus, even while doing something nifty like firing a single extra arrow (at no penalty with IRS) just seems like it fits with the Archer's schtick to me. I know most everyone else's opinions will probably be different, but unless some math head provides a solid analysis that convinces me IRS is actually unbalancing when compared to most Melee Masters, I'm probably going to keep that mental image of the marksman in my head as I try to build any Archer characters, and allow IRS as written in my own games.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Nail (Jan 26, 2004)

I had a few minutes to calculate damage from a greatswords-man and an archer, both at 9th level, appriate feats, and archer has IRS.

(Aside: I'm spending most of my free time planning a large battle I'm DMing...not much time for "trivia pursuit".   )

I ignored TWF style fighter, as this is practically always sub-optimal to a greatsword fighter, except at very high ACs.  I also ignored the monk, as generally he is also sub-optimal, unless his Str is comparable to that of a fighter, *and* he's higher level (12+).

Greatsword guy won.  Biggest difference: 1 1/2 strength bonus to damage.  Bows don't get that.

Ouch.

I guess IRS is Okay.  Let's see how it works out in-game.  Perhaps we'll see ways to abuse it later....


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 26, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> I had a few minutes to calculate damage from a greatswords-man and an archer, both at 9th level, appriate feats, and archer has IRS. <snip>
> Greatsword guy won. Biggest difference: 1 1/2 strength bonus to damage. Bows don't get that.
> 
> Ouch.
> ...



Well, that's good to hear, but would you mind posting the file you used (assuming an Excel spreadsheet or something) so we can look at the numbers ourselves? Barring that, could you have them handy for me to peruse at our next session? (And that big battle is for *this* Wednesday or *next* Wednesday? )

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Nail (Jan 26, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Well, that's good to hear, but would you mind posting the file...



I'll post the numbers...err...(when will I have time for that?  Hmmm..) by the end of the week. ??  The beginning of the semester is always harder for us teachers than it is for the students.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 26, 2004)

Did your comparison manage to take into account the archer getting more full attacks that the greatsword wielder because he doesn't have to move?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 26, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'll post the numbers...err...(when will I have time for that? Hmmm..) by the end of the week. ?? The beginning of the semester is always harder for us teachers than it is for the students.



Especially when those teachers are busy working on a big D&D battle at the beginning of the semester. 

Alright, I'll look forward to them. And the x1.5 StrMod for 2HF I completely forgot about in my post above. A couple other things I forgot to mention I was reminded of in another thread here in the Rules forum are 1) 3.5 no longer allowing bow & arrow enhancements to stack (which I think is a good thing), and 2) GMW being toned down a bit, both of which were significant over-contributors (IMO) to Archer-Power in 3.0.

And James McM? If it isn't already obvious, Nail's my DM. While I still want to see his numbers personally I have seen enough of his work to have faith in them. You bring up an important point and I'm interested to see what parameters he set up (like how far apart they are at the start of the battle, does the outcome change if it's within charging distance for the 2HF 1st round or not, etc.).

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## AeroDm (Jan 26, 2004)

The consensus seems to indicate that IRS is overpowered... but compared to what?  If it is considered more powerful than the other archery feats this makes sense because it is an upper tier feat and hence should be more powerful.  Besides the one report that a THF beat the archery guy in a single combat I haven't seen any arguement comparing IRS to anything but itself.

I'd personally don't think IRS is too overpowering at all especially with the other changes to 3.5 where thf is drastically improved.


----------



## AeroDm (Jan 26, 2004)

I really like the -4 for 2 additional attacks idea.  I think it fits in much better with what feats are supposed to do imo.  I think that feats, especially higher level feats, should allow you to do something rather than do something better.

I think Weapon Focus is a horrid feat, although a wonderful prerequisite.

A powerful archer fire off 6 arrows in 6 seconds with precision would be very impressive feat.   (man that was lame.)


----------



## AeroDm (Jan 26, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> I think you're way overreacting.  When I was using an archer with Rapid Shot, I always used it in a full attack anyway.  It's been proven that the only time you don't want to use Rapid Shot is when you need an 18 or 19 to hit without it.  That should be pretty rare.
> 
> -The Souljourner



I am fairly sure Sword and Fist had a chart showing that when you need a 15+ to hit you shouldn't take it.  This chart was for flurry of blows and taking a -2 to all attacks for an extra attack-- same scenario.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 27, 2004)

For the record, I don't think that IRS is an over powered feat. But then again, when I'm playing an archer I use RS evey chance I get. I play an epic archer in an arena and IRS just wasn't worth the cost of a feat.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Jan 27, 2004)

I don't allow IRS in my game.  I think it's too powerful, personally.

It's hard to compare the power of ranged attacks with melee attacks.  Ranged attacks have three significant advantages: they don't require the user to close, they can snipe at extreme range (over a quarter mile!), and they are much more likely to make full attacks.


----------



## Scion (Jan 27, 2004)

If this feat is ok then why didnt they make a feat that cancled out large portions (read cancles -2 for each attack) of the twf penalties? It would actually be a weaker feat than the IRS. So if people feel that IRS is ok then this feat for twf would be fine as well 

I havent seen IRS in play yet.. but it does fill me with a bit of trepidation.. how many people have seen it in play at the mid levels? (9 - 13 or so) That extra +2 to all ranged attacks could be very nice indeed..


----------



## Darklone (Jan 27, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> If this feat is ok then why didnt they make a feat that cancled out large portions (read cancles -2 for each attack) of the twf penalties? It would actually be a weaker feat than the IRS. So if people feel that IRS is ok then this feat for twf would be fine as well



Monte Cooks AU has this rule... effectively you fight at your normal BAB with two weapons and the appropriate feats. But it would be really overpowered if you would get as many additional offhand attacks as soon as in 3.5 (ITWF and GTWF).


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 27, 2004)

Improved Two-Weapon fighting etc. are the twf counterparts to IRS, and they are much more powerful when you only consider full attack actions.


----------



## Korak (Jan 27, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't allow IRS in my game.  I think it's too powerful, personally.
> 
> It's hard to compare the power of ranged attacks with melee attacks.  Ranged attacks have three significant advantages: they don't require the user to close, they can snipe at extreme range (over a quarter mile!), and they are much more likely to make full attacks.




It all depends on what kind of campaign you run.  I can recall maybe 10 encounters at best in all my DnD playing that involved encounter distances of over 300 feet.  Most encounters in the campaigns I've been involved in begin at distances in the 50-120 ft range.  Most of those are indoors where turns in corridors and other combatants block line of sight to the juicy targets.  Being able to deliver a full attack while being outside the melee range of an opponent is indeed powerful.  However, in most encounters (in my experience) it is a fleeting advantage.  Furthermore, no archer full attack comes close to a melee powerhouse full attack.  Oh, and don't forget the revamped deflect arrows feat that is now automatic negation of the arrow with the best chance to hit.  IRS could only be overpowered in a low magic world where all encounters happen on sunny days across wide open plains.

I would love to see some numbers in support of the opinion that IRS is overpowered, especially since there is no equivalent of power attack for ranged combat (in core rules).  I have played both melee damage characters and ranged characters in 3.0 and 3.5.  The change in relative power was absolutely astounding.  Archery was too good in 3.0, but IMO it has been way over-nerfed.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 28, 2004)

I tend to have many outdoors adventures with PCs not yet or barely able to D-Door. The group (spellcaster heavy) tends to rely on fireballs and other spells though... so I had two puny CR 5 manticores nearly kill half of the level 8-10 party lately. Luckily, the groups single archer druid took them out pretty fast.


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

*A few numbers...not a complete analysis*

A player (*DrSpunj*) and I are discussing whether or not the Feat: Improved Rapid Shot is too powerful.  I was asked to provide some numbers.  Here they are:

Improved Rapid Shot vs. Greatsword

_Two human Ftr 9, 32 point buy, appropriate wealth, assume +4 ability boost item, +3 weapon, then miscellaneous (and unaccounted for) magic loot._

*Archer*:  Str 16, Dex 24, Con 14, all else 8
Feats:	(human) Weapon Focus (L. Comp. Bow)
	(1st lvl) Point Blank Shot
	(1st Ftr) Precise Shot
	(2nd Ftr) Rapid Shot
	(3rd lvl) (*any*)
	(4th Ftr) Specialization (L. Comp. Bow)
	(6th lvl)	 Manyshot
	(6th Ftr) (*any*)
	(8th Ftr) Imp. Rapid Shot
	(9th lvl) Greater Weapon Focus
Attacks: +22/+22/+17 (Imp. Rapid Shot w/in 30 ft)
Damage: 1d8 + 3(Str) + 2 (Spec) + 3 (magic weap)
Ave. Damage per Atk: 12.5 hp

*Greatsword*: Str 24, Dex 16, Con 14, all else 8
Feats:	(human) Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
	(1st lvl) Power Attack
	(1st Ftr) (*any*)
	(2nd Ftr) (*any*)
	(3rd lvl) (*any*)
	(4th Ftr) Specialization (Greatsword)
	(6th lvl) (*any*)
	(6th Ftr) (*any*)
	(8th Ftr) Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
	(9th lvl) Imp. Critical (Greatsword)
Attacks: +21/+16
Damage: 2d6 + 10(Str*1.5) + 2 (Spec) + 3 (magic weap)
Ave. Damage per Atk: 22 hp

___Key for Table below:___
Average Damage per full attack with a Greatsword (Gr)
Average Damage per full attack with a Bow (Bow)

AC / Gr / Bow
17 / 50 / 39
18 / 50 / 39
19 / 49 / 39
20 / 48 / 39
21 / 46 / 38
22 / 45  / 37
23 / 44 / 36
24 / 41 / 36
25 / 38  / 34
26 / 36 / 32
27 / 33 / 30
28 / 30 / 28
29 / 28 / 25
30 / 25 / 23
31 / 22 / 21
32 / 20 / 19
33 / 17 / 17
34 / 15 / 15
35 / 12 / 13
36 / 9 / 11
37 / 8 / 9

Analysis (FWIW) to follow.....when I've got time.  

<EDIT> Fixed damage calc, used +3 weapon


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

Okay...I've got 13 minutes before I lecture, so...that counts as "time" doesn't it?  

On the above numbers, you'll note I gave the archer a number of advantages. 
 The archer gets 50% more attacks than the greatsword weilder - that relative percentage goes down after level 10.
 The archer is able to use Point Blank Shot (within 30').
 The greatsword weilder isn't using Power Attack.
 The greatsword weilder has an "odd" (+7) Strength bonus, which gives him less Strength bonus damage than an "even" Str bonus.

As I see it, the greatsword weilder does significantly better than the archer at ACs typical of this EL range (8 to 12).  Moreover, the greatsword weilder has more feats to spend on whatever he likes...the archer has spent most of his feats to get this good.

....Okay, outta time.  Food for thought:  The reason the greatsword weilder does more damage (on average, per round) is because of his 1.5 Str bonus *and* his Improved Critcal feat.  Without the Improved Critical feat, the two of them are dead even at high AC, and the greatsword wins at low AC.


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

Blast!  I made a mistake in the damage part ....

....<EDIT> Mistake fixed.


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yo*

Hey thanks for running the numbers!

A number of things to consider:  bracers of archery, minor and major, give to hit and damage bonuses that are, generally, unavailable to melee folks.

Plus, the big point:

Archers in my experience get far more than one extra shot over their melee counterparts.  

Meaning, for every "full attack" that a melee guy gets, typically an archer gets 2 (on average).  I think this is actually conservative.  

"Normal" Battle, for party prepared for something.  (given your sample PCs).

Round1 -- See bad guys at 50'.  Archer does full attack.  Fighters charge.  

Archer: 3 attacks.  Fighter:  1 attack.


Round2 -- Melee types engage, full attack.  Archer full attack.  Archer gets 3 attacks, melee guy 2.


Round3 -- Fighter killed whatever it was it was facing the previous round,  moves/charges to get to next guy (typically they are not neatly lined up).  Melee attacks once, archer 3 times.

Total so far:  Archer 9 attacks, Melee guy 4.

Etc.

Plus, it often happens with melee guys that there is a lot of wasted overflow damage done, while an archer can simply target another bad guy (if the 1st arrow kills something).  A fighter doing a full attack that kills it on swing1, well, he's done unless something else is within 5'.

All these niggly little things add up, in my experience, in a big way:  more full attacks, auto-targeting, ranged safety, etc.  When you throw haste into the mix, archers are helped disproportionatly (they take more full attack actions), etc. etc.

This is my playing experience; in a narrow twisty no-line-of-sight dungeon archers are very suboptimal.  But, we don't come across that situation as much as other situations -- by far.

Just my impressions -- 

What do you think the full attack ratio is, ranged vs. melee?

2 for 1?  1 for 1?  2.5 for 1?  3 for 1?


----------



## Darklone (Jan 28, 2004)

You can't say that for sure. The archer in our group is a druid, so she has a suboptimal BAB and casts now and then. 

Taking Manyshot into account kills all calculations as well since it rocks for surprise rounds where the tanks usually don't act at all (while the rangers and druids with their abyssally high Spot checks do) or have to move into position...


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yeah, but what does your gut say?*

I know there are too many factors to calculate reliably, but, in your gut, what do you feel?

Given your gaming experience, how often do archers full attack?  How often do melee guys?

Sum up all battles in memory, divide, process, result =  it's easy.  Right.


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yep, it's easy*



			
				two said:
			
		

> I know there are too many factors to calculate reliably, but, in your gut, what do you feel?



I feel like melee fighters get the short end o' th' stick on this one.

I spent the last 10 minutes fussing with what happens at higher levels, what happens if you add in bracers of archery, what happens if the weapons do "energy" damage unstead of the +1 or +2 to attack (+2d6 holy damage!).

*Bottom Line*: Great sword still does more damage on a full attack at low ACs (15 - 23).  Archers do more damage at high ACs (30+).

But, as many have said, that's in an ideal situation: Full attack, a foe with lots of hp, etc.  And even in that ideal situation, I'd prefer to be the archer, doing less damage.  Why?  

Read my lips: "No New Wounds"

'Cause, really: you don't think the enemies in base-to-base contact are just standing there, do you?  Who's gonna be down on the floor, bleeding to death, by round 4?  

In that kinda race, the archer is happy to lose.


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

....and as long as I'm ruminating on this, here's a thought:

Some DMs don't run battles well.  The enemies ambush from too far away, all encounters start from 60' away, enemies ignore the "back row" in favor of those in front.....

In a typical dungeon with 10' wide halls and 30' x 30' rooms, it's no wonder the archer is always able to do his maximized schtick.

In campaigns I like, underground exploration (ruined temple or natural caverns) is always cramped and twisted.  Underground, especially if the archer is in back, the archer is unlikely to be in a optimized setting for his attacks.  In that case, the melee fighter is best.

<EDIT> One more thing:  I've compared the *absolute best* melee weapon vs the bow.  If your melee monster isn't using a greatsword.....then he is doing less damage, and therefore loses to the archer every time.

So: any style other than greatsword loses to bow because of the feat Improved Rapid Shot.  Is that a good thing?


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Taking Manyshot into account kills all calculations as well ..



Nope, the calculations can do that too.

Melee: Charge + Power Attack = More damage than Manyshot

Next!


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Allow me to add the damage figures for the greatsword fighter with Power Attack included.  I have a fun power attack spreadsheet that I developed for my high level melee characters to optimize my power attack selections.  I am slowly generalizing it for any melee setup.  It still requires a little tweaking when considering new setups, but anyway... here is the optimized damage for the fighter Nail mentioned earlier when he uses power attack to its fullest.


```
AC  -  PA  -  GS  -  Bow
10  -   8  -  87  -   39
11  -   9  -  84  -   39
12  -   9  -  82  -   39
13  -   9  -  79  -   39
14  -   9  -  77  -   39
15  -   8  -  73  -   39
16  -   7  -  69  -   39
17  -   6  -  65  -   39
18  -   5  -  61  -   39
19  -   4  -  58  -   39
20  -   3  -  54  -   39
21  -   2  -  50  -   38
22  -   1  -  46  -   37
23 to 38, PA for 0
39+ PA for 9
```

The THF really outshine the archers in taking out lower AC opponents.  It really isn't even a contest.

I may post hasted numbers, charging numbers for the GS, and a higher level comparison later if people care for it.

Also, people have argued that the archer is getting more full attacks... are none of the enemies in your games moving past the tanks to engage the archers/casters?  Sure, if no enemies pressure the archers to make them move, they will get more full attacks, but those are not terribly intelligent opponents.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 28, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Next!



Okay, I've probably done something wrong with this, but here's the Excel sheet I threw together this morning. It starts out with Nail's basic assumptions and 100% Full Attacks for both the Melee Master & the Archer. However, it also allows you to manipulate a few things like the percentage of Single Attacks vs Charge Attacks (Assumption: the +2 AB you get from Charging you convert with Power Attack to +4 damage) vs Full Attacks so you can see how the numbers change.

I've added a relatively "basic" critical damage component (like a range of 19-20/x2 gets you double damage 10% of the time), and the formulas at the bottom that figure out damage won't take into account more than 2 base attacks (though I'll probably go back and add a 3rd and 4th base attack to account for BABs greater than 9 at some point), but I added enough function that you can change the Ability scores, Magic Items/Weapons, how much to Power Attack, +/- WF/WS/GWF, Average Weapon Damage, Crit Range, Crit Damage, whether or not PBS is included in the Archer calculations (though it's either in or out of all of them), etc.

It's not very pretty, and doesn't use menus and such, but I *think* it works. Please let me know if you find errors. I've highlighted the cells in gray that you can change, the rest of them are formulas or alter my basic assumptions.

I did use this to compare a lot of situations, and I don't think IRS is overpowered, but that's a gestalt. As Nail posted above, this is currently set up to compare a Greatsword wielder with Improved Critical to an Archer with IRS. You can change it to look at a variety of Melee Masters and the outcome doesn't change much: Melee Master better at low ACs, Archer better at high ACs (usually >30).

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

For those of you with an excel spreadsheet:

The formula for critical hits simplifies to:
  1 + A*(B-1)   -->the "Critical hit confirmation Eqn"

where 
"A" is the chance to critical (a 19-20 range means a 10% chance), and 
"B" is the critical multiplier (so a greataxe, at x3, has a crit. multiplier of 3.)

The funny thing is, you just multiply that (above) with the "normal" average damage per round to get the total damage, including criticals.  I always have thought that's weird.......  It works out to 10% extra damage from either a greatsword or a greataxe.

Anyway: to calculate average damage from 1 attack you use the following formula:

Ave. Dam.= C * D * (1+ A*(B-1))

where:
"C" is the chance to hit the opponent, and
"D" is the average damage per hit.

So........  
In an excel spreadsheet, the cell equation will be:

MIN(0.95, MAX((21-$A12+D$7)*0.05,0.05))*B$7*$C$7

where:
"$A12" is the opponent's AC,
"D$7" is the attacker's attack bonus,
"B$7" is the attacker's average damage per attack, and
"$C$7" is the critical confirm calculation.

Scared off yet?


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, here is my power attack spreadsheet for giggles.  This version is tweaked for the 2 attack character with 9 base attack.  I have been spurred by this thread to fully generalize it.  That will be forthcoming.

In this version you can account for sneak attack damage and various critical multipliers and threat ranges.  It will also properly implement bane damage, but not the added bonus to hit the baned enemy, so remember to manually add 2 to the attack bonus if you are calculating versus a bane enemy.  Place a 1 in the parameters field for sneak attack, bane damage, or elemental weapon properties and enter the average damage roll to indicate when that damage is appropriate, and a 0 in those fields when the target is not subject to that type of damage.  eg.  If our example fighter had a +3 flaming greatsword it would look like this: 
	
	



```
Parameters	
Attack Bonus	21
Damage Bonus	15
Average Weapon Damage	7
Power Attack Multiplier	2
Fierce Bonus	0
Subject to Sneak/Bane Attacks	0
Average Sneak/Bane Damage	0
Subject to Elemental Attacks	1
Average Elemental Damage	3.5
Subject to Critical Hits	1
Threat Range	17
Critical Multiplier	2
```


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> Allow me to add the damage figures for the greatsword fighter with Power Attack included.



Thanks, Korak!

BTW, is your method brute force or calculus?  I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations......  For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):

Best Power Attack = (2A - B)/4 + 10.5

where
"A" = Atk - AC, and
"W" = average weapon damage, including criticals.

As for more than one attack.....I'm not there yet.  



> Also, people have argued that the archer is getting more full attacks... are none of the enemies in your games moving past the tanks to engage the archers/casters?  Sure, if no enemies pressure the archers to make them move, they will get more full attacks, but those are not terribly intelligent opponents.



Heh, heh, heh.  Ask DrSpunj's archer about that.    

The trick as a DM, of course, is to have a variety of types of combat.  If the archer is neutered in most combats, he ceases to be a fun PC-type to play.

The trick _as a player_ is to make sure your PC has more than one schtick, so that you can't be neutered so easily.  I mean, really: do you _want_ to be easily neutered?


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Thanks, Korak!
> 
> BTW, is your method brute force or calculus?  I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations......  For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):






			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Thanks, Korak!
> 
> BTW, is your method brute force or calculus?  I'd kinda like someone else to show me their derived equations......  For only one attack per round, it's easy (I ....think....):




My equations are all in that spreadsheet.

The user inputs the target AC, then the spreadsheet calculates the average damage for each possible amount of power attack, then selects the maximum, so yes, it is in essence a brute force method.  The exception is for a single attack.  I do have an explicit formula for that case:  =IF(MIN(attack bonus+2-ac, base attack)>0,MIN(attack bonus+2-ac,9),IF(ac-attack bonus >= 18, base attack,0))

That formula is in excel logic.  Basically it says that as a general rule, you should power attack for (your attack bonus + 2 - your target's ac).  If that formula produces a number less than one but greater than -17, power attack for 0.  Finally, if that forumla produces a number <= -18, then power attack for full.


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2004)

*thanks korak!*

The spreadsheet rulz!

In general, archers lag behind as you noted, from between 15-20 usually at lower AC's.

I've looked at a more "optimized" archer setup, with the archer using a +1 "holy" longbow instead of a +3 bow, ditto for the fighter's greatsword (+1 holy).

In general, the more bonuses you can give an archer (flat or not) the better the archer is, because of the increased number of attacks.

With the +2d6 extra "holy" damage per shot (assuming evil bad guys), the greatsword again does more damage than the bow.

AC / Melee Damage/ Archer Damage / WINNER

15	55.8		45.7	Melee Master
16	55.8		45.7	Melee Master
17	55.8		45.7	Melee Master
18	55.8		45.7	Melee Master
19	55.8		45.0	Melee Master
20	55.8		44.3	Melee Master
21	55.8		43.6	Melee Master
22	53.8		42.8	Melee Master
23	51.8		42.1	Melee Master
24	49.8		39.7	Melee Master
25	47.8		37.3	Melee Master
26	36.4		34.9	Melee Master
27	33.4		32.5	Melee Master
28	30.5		30.1	Melee Master
29	27.6		27.7	Archer
30	24.6		25.3	Archer
31	21.7		22.9	Archer
32	18.8		20.5	Archer
33	15.8		18.0	Archer
34	12.9		15.6	Archer
35	10.0		13.2	Archer
36	7.0		10.8	Archer
37	4.1		8.4	Archer
38	1.1		6.0	Archer
39	-1.8		3.6	Archer
40	-4.7		1.2	Archer


It's pretty consistently 10 more than the archer until AC=29.  This has the melee monster on 50/50 full attack/charge, and the archer on 75/25 full attack/standard.

The question is, is a lousy 10 points more damage per round to AC's less than 29 worth the price you pay to wade into combat?

(as a side note, if a bard is singing for +2/+2 while these guys are fighting, the spread narrows to 9 or so until AC=29 when the archer wins).

Obviously, I think the archer has it easy.  I'd like to see the archer doing 20 less per round at least -- heck, he's not in any danger (or, not as much).  But maybe that's just me.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 28, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Scared off yet?



Nope, I *think* that's what I did, though admittedly not as elegantly as your single equation. Still, I wanted to be able to alter the Crit Range and Multiplier easily to look at different scenarios.

Now, I do wish I knew how to put Power Critical (from CW, gives a +4 to confirm a threat) into the equation. That was the single CW feat I chose for the 2HF (I figured the Archer had IRS, so why not) originally, but wasn't sure how to alter the equation to account for an increased chance to confirm.

Any help there? Any problems with the way I did it in my spreadsheet? BTW, I know the damage calculation at the bottom is *UGLY*, but I worked several examples out by hand, and I believe it's functional. If I decide to put a lot more time in this I'll break down each IF formula into it's own cell on another Sheet and just bring over the total to the front one.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Now, I do wish I knew how to put Power Critical (from CW, gives a +4 to confirm a threat) into the equation. That was the single CW feat I chose for the 2HF (I figured the Archer had IRS, so why not) originally, but wasn't sure how to alter the equation to account for an increased chance to confirm.





ooooh.. Power Critical... I shall have to add that as a parameter too.  I'll stop to type more explanation and check out your spreadsheet in more detail when I get off work.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 28, 2004)

Here's it is again with a slight update. The Damage cells on line 58 weren't SUMming the Greater Weapon Spec & Point Blank Shot values because of the way I inserted new rows. You can download this new version or just alter the formulas in B58 and D58 to sum(49:55) in both places in each formula to correct the error.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> The spreadsheet rulz!
> 
> In general, archers lag behind as you noted, from between 15-20 usually at lower AC's.
> 
> ...





Thanks for the unintentional props... but it appears you used DrSpunj's spreadsheet, not mine.  Also, your numbers don't include power attack.  Try my spreadsheet and recompare.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 28, 2004)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The numbers mean *nothing* unless you put it in the context of a campaign setting. There are so many variables that you can't incorporate them into any simple mathematical analysis.

If you're doing battle on a huge open field with your enemy beginning combat at nearly 2,000 feet away, the bow will be better. If you're starting combat in a small 10' X 10' room with your opponent 5' away, the melee weapon is more useful. The standard power attack formulas fall apart if your foe has DR that you can't avoid. A holy bow is far better against a Rakshasa than a holy axe. How many attacks will an archer be subject to (as opposed to a melee fighter)? What are the respective odds that a melee fighter and an archer will be flanked?

You can do math til you're blue in the face, but in the end your results will either be incomplete or will be too bundled in conditional statements to be of any use.

The real question is this: Can an archer plan an important role in a PC party? The answer, from my experience, is yes. That is the important question.


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
> 
> The numbers mean *nothing* unless you put it in the context of a campaign setting. There are so many variables that you can't incorporate them into any simple mathematical analysis.
> 
> ...




You answered a question, for sure, but it wasn't the question that had been asked.

Ever heard that followup to the ubiquitous "Jesus is the answer?"  i.e. "What's the question again?"

Nobody doubts an archer is effective in a party; we are attempting to determine the result of a feat on that effectiveness.

Is it too effective?  Is it not enough?  Is it just right?

Nobody here thinks a simple numerical analysis "proves" anything but, to me, it does indicate trends -- i.e. archers do very respectible damage and don't have very many serious drawbacks.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 28, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> Thanks for the unintentional props... but it appears you used DrSpunj's spreadsheet, not mine. Also, your numbers don't include power attack. Try my spreadsheet and recompare.



I noticed that, too. 

I did want to point out that he identifies his numbers came from setting the Melee Master at 50% Full Attacks and 50% Charging. The way I've set up that sheet, any Charge attack takes the +2 attack from charging and converts it to +4 damage with Power Attack, so there is some Power Attack being used there, but nothing as precise or optimized as what you've got in your spreadsheet. BTW, very nice job with that sheet, *Korak.*

If I really work on this sheet and spend a lot of time cleaning it up I'll separate out the Power Attack so it can be applied separately to Single Attacks, Charge Attacks and Full Attacks, but right now it's not nearly that functional.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Nail (Jan 28, 2004)

Nice spreadsheets, guys!  Who says Excel can't be a "fun" program!



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
> 
> The numbers mean *nothing* unless you put it in the context of a campaign setting.




I agree, in part.  But I believe you're over-playing your hand here, jgsugden.  Regardless of the campaign, the numbers remain the same.  That's the point.

The question is whether or not IRS is overpowered.  That question is NOT so campiagn-specific that it can't be examined....and I know that you, too, like to use math once in a while.  

In this particular case, the numbers seem to show that the IRS archer is significantly better than one without, and that the difference between the IRS archer and the "melee monster" greatsword weilder is _perhaps_ not as great as it should be, given the risk.

The numbers provide a valuable tool here, jgsugden.  No need to throw the orc-ling out with the bath blood.


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Nice spreadsheets, guys!  Who says Excel can't be a "fun" program!




Got that right   

I've added a separate parameter to input base attack.  The damage and power attack optimization still work, but I have to work in a method to add the 3rd and 4th attack back in while preserving my method of optimizing power attack based on variable base attack.  This is a great way to stretch your brain.


Here's the interim sheet for interested parties.  This is intended only for those who want to see the formulas and methodolgy.  Please note that this is only accurate for base attack 6-10 for full attack action because I have it hard coded as full attack = 2 attacks.  It will give bogus results for base attack 1-5 and 11-20 on the full attack readouts.  I'll throw up a mroe complete version later.

Gahh... boards are too slow.  I can't get my sheet attached.  I'll put it up soon.


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Here it is.  It works for all values of base attack 1-20.  I'll work on adding elemental burst weapons, power critical, and a few other things later.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 28, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> And I think Eltern also brought up a good point: Rapid Shot with Improved Rapid Shot is for Archery what the 3.5 Flurry of Blows has become for Monks. Now, from a strictly mechanical comparison it's not identical as it's possible to get IRS at 6th level while a Monk's FoB penalty doesn't disappear until 9th, but it's a pretty good analogy otherwise, IMO. If no one has problems with a 9th level Monk, would they feel better about IRS with a Prereq of BAB +9?



Or BAB +6, which is what a single-classed monk has at 9th level.  That's the difference - a monk only gets 3/4 BAB, a dedicated archer will have full BAB.  The monk will also have to spread his stats around while the archer only needs to concentrate on his dex.  But that's why Flurry was changed in 3.5 to get rid of the -2 penalty to hit - a monk doesn't have the attack bonus to spare.  You can't really compare the two.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 28, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Or BAB +6, which is what a single-classed monk has at 9th level. That's the difference - a monk only gets 3/4 BAB, a dedicated archer will have full BAB. The monk will also have to spread his stats around while the archer only needs to concentrate on his dex. But that's why Flurry was changed in 3.5 to get rid of the -2 penalty to hit - a monk doesn't have the attack bonus to spare. You can't really compare the two.



I agree that the Monk is stretched much thinner with their ability scores, but realize that IRS already has a BAB prereq of +6 because of Manyshot. That's why I suggested pushing it to +9, which is where the Monk's penalties disappear.

And it's not a direct analogy, no, but I think the similarities are worth noting. I don't think anyone has taken the view that the Archer isn't safer (assuming they're allowed to remain safely behind the Melee Master meat-wall ) than the Melee Master. The difference of opinion seems to revolve around whether or not IRS makes the Archer more effective than he _should_ be given his safe position and other advantages. As difficult as it seems, we're all trying to compare the two, and keep as many of their differences intact in the analysis as possible.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Korak (Jan 28, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> Here it is.  It works for all values of base attack 1-20.  I'll work on adding elemental burst weapons, power critical, and a few other things later.




I have borked up the single attack calculation in my quest to add other features, ignore it.  The full attack looks to still be correct.  Investigating.


<edit>
It seems that my formula for the single attack (which is in no way connected to the brute force method for full attack calculations) was not a fully general formula as I originally thought.  It was consistent with all my observations when I was modelling this with high level (18+) characters.  Now that I am analyzing lower end options (where the total attack bonus is often lower than the targets ac), I see that the formula is flawed.  Please ignore the single attack readouts until I can fix them.


----------



## LordAO (Jan 28, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> i.e. archers do very respectible damage and don't have very many serious drawbacks.




Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?

Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.

First, Archers provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking, something melee characters don't need to worry about.

Second, Archers have limited ammunition. Even if you have a thousand arrows, you are still at a disadvantage to the melee character who has no such limit. And when you are fond of Rapid Shot (as most arhcers are), you go throguh ammunition all the quicker.

Third, Archers can't make attacks of opportunity, nor can they flank. This is a huge, huge disadvantage, especially considering the emphasis they place on Dexterity and what combat refelxes could do for them. Yeah, you people always bring up Rapid Shot as an example of how "archery is better than melee," but you often negelect to take into account what even a single attack of opportunity or flanking can add to a battle, especially for rogues.

Fourth, Archers have a limit on the damage they can deal because of the limits on strength adding to bows. Regular bows don't get the benefit of strength at all, and even a mighty composite bow can only add up to +4. And even if an archer wanted to have good damage and used a comp bow, that still means he has two attributes to worry about - Dex and Str. Melee characters, on the other hand, get the benfit of attack AND damage from a single attaribute.

On that same note, melee characters can really do well without a high dex at all. They can simply pump up their strength and con, tank in plate mail, and be juggernauts. Archers, on the other hand, usually stick to lighter armor since they emphasize Dexterity so much.

Fifth, Melee characters have alot more combat options. Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave, etc are often overlooked but can be a huge advantage to a melee character who uses them properly.

Sixth, there aren't anywhere near as many feats for archery as there are for melee. This isn't as big a deal for most characters (who only get 7-10 feats anyway), but it is a big deal for fighters. And more options is never a bad thing. Yes, Rapid Shot is nice, but don't forget about the awesome feats avaiable to melee (Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc).

Seventh, archers need two hands to use a bow. This isn't as big of a drawback as some of the others, but it does take away a significant option available to melee characters - shields.

Eighth, archers have some disadvantages compared to melee, particularly with environmental and circumstantail penalties. Some of these can be overcome with feats such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot, but consider that the melee character didn't have to spend feats because he didn't have those drawbacks to begin with.

Now, in fairness, I will point out that archer has some incredible advantages as well (such as having more flexibility in positioning himself and being able to full attack without having to spend time getting to his opponents). But please, people, don't act like archers have it all easy and don't get anything but advanatages over melee! To say they have no serious disadvantages is blatantly false.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

> mighty composite bow can only add up to +4




Not in 3.5.



> Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave




With the advent of complete warrior, archers can now sunder, disarm, and (kinda) grapple.

I do agree with everything else you've said though, and have never had a problem with archery (at least not in 3.5, the arrows + bows stuff in 3.0 was too much).


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 29, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> With the advent of complete warrior, archers can now sunder, disarm, and (kinda) grapple.




True, but each of those requires another feat slot, while the basic mechanic is available to the Melee Master just for being there. Sure, the Melee Master has Improved feats to make him substantially better at each maneuver, but he still has the options even without the feats.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> I do agree with everything else you've said though, and have never had a problem with archery (at least not in 3.5, the arrows + bows stuff in 3.0 was too much).




I agree with that entire statement.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Spatula (Jan 29, 2004)

LordAO said:
			
		

> Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?
> 
> Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.
> 
> First, Archers provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking, something melee characters don't need to worry about.



And something that archers very rarely need to worry about, since 95% of the time they can take a 5' step back and get a full attack off without suffereing an AoO.







> Second, Archers have limited ammunition. Even if you have a thousand arrows, you are still at a disadvantage to the melee character who has no such limit. And when you are fond of Rapid Shot (as most arhcers are), you go throguh ammunition all the quicker.



That can be a problem, but only if the party is unable to make resupply runs for some reason.







> Third, Archers can't make attacks of opportunity, nor can they flank.



Nor do they have to suffer the side effects of such, namely being subject to a full melee attack from their target.  Flanking is only really hugely useful to rogues, anyway.  The +2 to hit is nice for other characters if you can get it without losing out on attacks, but not critical.







> Fourth, Archers have a limit on the damage they can deal because of the limits on strength adding to bows.



Not true in 3.5, as mentioned.







> Fifth, Melee characters have alot more combat options. Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave, etc are often overlooked but can be a huge advantage to a melee character who uses them properly.



Of course, melee characters are also subject to those sorts of attacks more often than archery characters.  And grappling isn't a good thing unless you're facing humanoids.







> But please, people, don't act like archers have it all easy and don't get anything but advanatages over melee! To say they have no serious disadvantages is blatantly false.



I disagree.  I don't think archers are overpowered in 3.5, but they don't have any serious disadvantages.  They can't do some things melee fighters can, and the melee fighters can't do some things the archers can.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

You just agreed that there are lots of things archers can't do that melee characters can, then said they don't have disadvantages?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they do have disadvantages, but no more so than the melee fighters. Their disadvantages are just of a different nature.


----------



## two (Jan 29, 2004)

*As I said...*



			
				LordAO said:
			
		

> Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?
> 
> Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.
> 
> ...




As I said, no serious disadvantages.

1)  Archers provoke an AOO.  True.  That's why they 5'step and full attack a lot, or more typically don't get within melee with the bad guys.  This is a slight disadvantage.

2)  Ammo?  Are you serious?  Who the heck cares?  Pile up 1,000 arrows in your bag-o-much-stuff, or your quiver-o-mighty-capacity, etc.  A non issue in D&D which is very high magic by default.

3)  No AOO, No flanking.  This is more of an annoyance than a disadvantage.  The archer does not want to be flanking, does not want to be taking AOO's.  The archer wants to be 25' away from the enemy.  Is it a disadvantage that wizards can't cast spells during an AOO?  Sure.  Do they care?  Naw.  They don't want to be in a position to TAKE AOOs.

4) Mighty Bows are not limited in 3.5.

5) Yes they do.  That's a slight disadvantage to archers, after all, most of these options are not used often.

6)  Feats?  You don't need that many archery feats to be good at archery.  That's a disadvantage?

7)  Two hands used up -- same as the typical greatsword fighter.  Eh.  Even.

8)  Cover penalties; yeah, melee guys have them too on occasion.  Slight annoyance, most of the time.

I still maintain these are not "serious" disadvantages.  They are disadvantages, but not a big deal.  Honestly, I don't WANT to flank with a bow if I'm an archer, even if I could.  I don't want to be that close.  Is that really a disadvantage?  Ditto AOO's?

None of these compare in any way to the huge advantages of ranged combat, namely:  that dragon is not doing a FULL ATTACK on your posterior.  Or the Orc, or the Goblin, or the etc.  That's a serious advantage, to the tune of 10, 20, 50, 100 hit points.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 29, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You just agreed that there are lots of things archers can't do that melee characters can, then said they don't have disadvantages?



I said no *serious* disadvantages.







> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they do have disadvantages, but no more so than the melee fighters.



I would say archers have fewer disadvantages than melee fighters.







> Their disadvantages are just of a different nature.



That too.


----------



## HighlandsBear (Jan 29, 2004)

I would say that from the party's point of view a fighter taking damage on the frontline is half of his value. Archers are fighters that don't front up monsters and so leave them free to tear up the lone melee fighter (if after covering the basic divine, rogue and arcane roles the party even has one!) or wander over to whatever character they desire. Maybe from the archer's pov it's a benefit that he doesn't have to go toe to toe, but aren't those high hp's and ac going to waste? As much as offense gets minmaxed isn't melee defense as big a benefit of the fighter classes? There's saftey in numbers and spreading out the damage, and so for an archer to be worthwhile to a group he does need to do more damage than the average melee fighter.


----------



## LordAO (Jan 29, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> I still maintain these are not "serious" disadvantages.  They are disadvantages, but not a big deal.  Honestly, I don't WANT to flank with a bow if I'm an archer, even if I could.  I don't want to be that close.  Is that really a disadvantage?  Ditto AOO's?
> 
> None of these compare in any way to the huge advantages of ranged combat, namely:  that dragon is not doing a FULL ATTACK on your posterior.  Or the Orc, or the Goblin, or the etc.  That's a serious advantage, to the tune of 10, 20, 50, 100 hit points.




I respect your insights, but there is little point in continuing to drag this thread further and further off topic. The point I was trying to make is that melee and archery both have advantages and drawbacks. These things are seldom more than a nuisance, but they count. In my opinion, the two fighting styles are quite well balanced overall. Yes, they nerfed archery in 3.5 with the no magical bow and arrow stacking rule (for starters). But (this may surprise you that Im saying this), they also nerfed melee. Having to have a golfbag of weapons is the last thing any melee character wants. When I play a melee fighter, I want to dedicate myself to a single weapon (or pair of weapons), not lug around a golfbag full of adamntine, cold iron, holy, unholy, flaming, shocking, frost, axiomatic, etc, etc, etc weapons!   

IMHO, archery and melee were balanced in 3.0, and they are still balanced in 3.5. Just a little bit different ball game now - for everyone.

As far as the Improved Rapid Shot, I still don't really know. I've taken this as one of my feats for my Ranger character I'll be playing, so I'll get to find out first hand how balanced it is.

[EDIT] P.S. - Manyshot sucks! Just thought I'd add that.


----------



## Endur (Jan 29, 2004)

Improved Rapid Shot is yet another "Must" feat for an archer.

+2 to hit with all your arrows when doing a full attack.  Can't beat that.

The limitation that all you are doing is "getting rid of a -2 penalty" means that I'm willing to accept it as a feat (less math involved in calculating to hit), but its definitely at the upper limit of how powerful a feat should be.  Improved Precise Shot is also very powerful, as are Rapid Shot and Manyshot.  

Its a pity that melee characters don't have feats that are quite this powerful.


----------



## Korak (Jan 29, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> Its a pity that melee characters don't have feats that are quite this powerful.




Sorry Dog, gotta call you out on that one.  In terms of raw damage, no feat is more powerful than power attack.  Just as one quick example: An unhasted Ftr16 with a total attack bonus of 34, wielding a flaming greatsword enchanted to +4, naturally or GMW, with a +20 to damage and improved critical, attacking an AC25 target (something he might want to trade full attacks with); optimal use of power attack will raise his average damage done on a charge from 34 to 64, and raise his average damage on the full attack from 127 to 148.  This same fighter spring attacking a nastier opponent of ac 32 that he might not want to trade full attacks with has his damage raised from 34 to 43.  Finally, even at level 16, a fighter sometimes has to deal with lower AC foes, be they summoned animals or hordes of lesser creatures.  Against AC 15 foes, his charge damage goes from 34 to 71 (more than doubling), and his full attack goes from 136 to 235 (nearly 100 more damage in a round... without factoring in haste).  Power attack is hoss, and totally worth it for any character that melees and has a respectable to-hit bonus.

In a related development... the single attack portion of my power attack spreadsheet has been diagnosed and repaired.  It is attached.

It is hard for me to believe that in this same thread where people are saying things like this:  







			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Flanking is only really hugely useful to rogues, anyway. The +2 to hit is nice for other characters if you can get it without losing out on attacks, but not critical.




That some people can be arguing that IRS is overpowered.  One might also say, "Improved Rapid Shot is only really hugely useful for archers, anyway.  The +2 to hit is nice... but not critical."

Some "+2 to hit" is overpowered, but other "+2 to hit" is "nice, but not critical"?

Let me demonstrate:  Unhasted Level 16 Ftr, archery spec'd, 16BA, +36 to hit, +15 to damage, improved crit, one elemental damage die... first, without IRS

Avg dmg on full attack vs AC 20: 128
vs AC 30: 108
vs AC 40: 57

Now for the IRS archer
vs AC 20: 128
vs AC 30: 114
vs AC 40: 68

The best results were against high AC opponents, but even then, spread across 5 attacks, there was only an increase of 11 damage.... that is barely more powerful than weapon specialization.

For me, that is case closed.


----------



## Nail (Jan 29, 2004)

Now that _Complete Warrior_ has been out for a while, are we apt to see more Composite Mighty Greatbows (dam 1d10)?

One of the big things that keeps this melee/missile race even is that missle weapons don't do a lot of damage.  What if that were to change?


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2004)

Going from a d8 to a d10 won't change a lot. And it costs a feat. The biggest disadvantage of the archers towards the melee monsters is the 1* strength modifier to damage with composite bows instead of 1.5 * str mod or TWF stuff plus more additional attacks.

Now, 2d6 or 2d8 for a bow, that would change something. I already thought about houseruling Xbows to a little bit more damage.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

Darklone is right. the one extra average damage is nowhere near the cost of a feat. It _might_ be worth a feat if playing an archer cleric with righteous might. Then you get an extra 2 average damage. Even then there are (IMO) better options available.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2004)

Hmm. How often is Enlarge Person used on archers in your group? Might be worth it...

Question: An enlarged bow would do more damage due to size, but would you rule that a mighty composite bow would be adjusted to the increased strength (+2) of the wielder???


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

I forgot about enlarge person. Even then though, +2 damage isn't worth a feat (at least not for an archer). Unless you have tons of feats to spare.

I wouldn't allow the bow to increase its strength bonus. You want a higher strength bonus, you have to pay more.


----------



## two (Jan 29, 2004)

*Hmmm different results*

Hi Korak --

I'm using Dr.SpunJ's updated spreadsheet, it's easier for me, a novice, to read and modify.

My results differ just a bit. I'm using an archer with minor bracers of archery, and both the archer and the greatsword are "holy" (generally one of the best enchantment types).

Assumptions:  50/50 full attack/charge+power attack for the melee guy, 75/25 full attack/single attack for archer (forget about manyshot right now).

Results:

AC	Melee	No IRS	Imp.RS	Difference
15	55.8	48.3	48.3	0.0
16	55.8	48.3	48.3	0.0
17	55.8	47.6	48.3	0.8
18	55.8	46.8	48.3	1.5
19	55.8	46.0	47.6	1.5
20	55.8	45.3	46.8	1.5
21	55.8	44.5	46.0	1.5
22	53.8	42.0	45.3	3.3
23	51.8	39.4	44.5	5.1
24	49.8	36.9	42.0	5.1
25	47.8	34.3	39.4	5.1
26	36.4	31.8	36.9	5.1
27	33.4	29.3	34.3	5.1
28	30.5	26.7	31.8	5.1
29	27.6	24.2	29.3	5.1
30	24.6	21.6	26.7	5.1
31	21.7	19.1	24.2	5.1
32	18.8	16.5	21.6	5.1
33	15.8	14.0	19.1	5.1
34	12.9	11.4	16.5	5.1
35	10.0	8.9	14.0	5.1
36	7.0	6.4	11.4	5.1
37	4.1	3.8	8.9	5.1
38	1.1	1.3	6.4	5.1
39	-1.8	-1.3	3.8	5.1
40	-4.7	-3.8	1.3	5.1


It's not completely huge, but it's significant.  For the AC's the archer really "cares" about (has trouble hitting sometimes, AC >25 or so) the damage increase is 5 per round.  Granted, this is spread out over 3 attacks, so it's worse than weapon specialization (assuming 3 arrows hit).  On the other hand, it's not much worse, and you don't have to be a fighter4 to take it.  It's an "average" damage amount increase, and also helps to critical more often (confirming threats).

But, point taken.  IRS is good, strong, solid, but not overwhelming.  An extra 5 points a round ain't gonna kill anyone.

So, maybe it's ok?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 29, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> I'm using Dr.SpunJ's updated spreadsheet, it's easier for me, a novice, to read and modify.



Hey, thanks for modifying the sheet that way. I thought about doing that as well, splitting the Archer column into both with and without IRS going. That's good to know.

The other thing I thought of as I drove into work this morning is that I check for a natural 1 always failing at lower ACs, but don't bother checking for needing a natural 20 to hit the higher ACs.

Creating a spreadsheet accounting for all these things could become a full time job! 

Anyone figure out how Power Critical (adds +4 to confirm a threat) would enter the calculations? Nail's provided the basic formula (sans feat) a page or two back, but how do you account for a 20% increased chance to confirm?

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

> An extra 5 points a round ain't gonna kill anyone.




Except that poor guy who would have been at -5 if the archer hadn't had IRS.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 29, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> I agree, in part.  But I believe you're over-playing your hand here, jgsugden.  Regardless of the campaign, the numbers remain the same.  That's the point.



Yes and no. The calculations remain the same, but those calculations do not reveal how useful that feat is going to be in a campaign unless you put them in context.

As another gross example. How valuable is the improved rapid shot feat in a campaign that doesn't aloow bows? How valuable is it in a campaign where the only manufactured weapons are bows? 

Are you likely to see such a massive shift in the utility of this feat between campaigns that are acutally played? No, but you will see a lot of variance that will result in a significant difference in how useful this feat is going to be.

Does your DM throw armies of low level stuff at your party instead of one big creature? If so, this feat is less useful as these smaller creatures tend to have an AC that you hit with a 2, even with the penalty for RS.

Does the DM throw monsters at you the force you to move a lot during combat? If so, this feat is less useful as you only have a standard action to fire your bow instead of a full round to use rapid shot.

Does the DM throw a lot of high AC foes at you? Does the DM use small dungeon areas that make archery difficult? Etc ...

The numbers remain the same, but we're looking at balance which is a function of more than just the numbers. A feat that grants a huge benefit, but may only be used rarely might be balanced with a feat that grants a small benefit at all times.

To an extent, this is true when analyzing the balance of any feat or ability, but in the case of archery, it tends to be more true than usual. The effectiveness of archery as a combat tool is tied very closely to campaign design. If a DM puts a winding corridor into the game, archery will be very difficult in that passage. 

In the end, unless we can figure out how often a PC will be able to use a full round action to attack his foe compared to the time other PCs would have time to act, we really can't figure out how useful this feat will be. The same, to a good extent, can be said about rapid shot. I've been in sections of a campaign where archery was useless. I've also played in entire campaigns where an archer could use a full attack action in almost every round.

The only way to figure out if this feat is abusive in your game is to try it out. Play a few sessions. If the archer has the feat, keep track of the times he hit because he has the feat. If he doesn't have the feat, keep track of the number of times (during a rapid shot) that he would have hit if he had the feat. During this time, keep track of the total number of rounds of combat as well to help put your other results in context. Look at those results and see how useful the feat has been. 

And if you don't have an archer ... why the heck do you care enough to have read this much of this thread?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 29, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> And if you don't have an archer ... why the heck do you care enough to have read this much of this thread?



Because he's a DM, and one of his players (that's me ) _does_ have an archer.

Furthermore, I believe he designed a mid-level 3.5 Ranger Archer for a one-shot months ago, and got to experience archery firsthand. He can, of course, answer you far better on specifics, but I believe his lasting impression of archery was that even with the 3.5 changes it was still a very powerful style.

Now, since IRS was just recently released with Complete Warrior, and I was interested in the possibility of picking up IRS at 9th level with my PC, we both wanted to go over it and look at some numbers, to figure out whether it was something we wanted at our game table. We're not in any kind of a rush as my PC is just now nearing 5th level and Nail isn't one to hand out mucho XP with every session.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Korak (Jan 29, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Hmm. How often is Enlarge Person used on archers in your group? Might be worth it...
> 
> Question: An enlarged bow would do more damage due to size, but would you rule that a mighty composite bow would be adjusted to the increased strength (+2) of the wielder???




Don't forget the -2 to hit with ranged weapons imposed by enlarge person... -2 dex and -1 for size... hmm, sounds like a very limited power attack for ranged characters... -2 to hit for +2 avg dmg.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 29, 2004)

*..*

You also forgot to mention, as a disadvantage, that bows are hella easier to Sunder than swords are.

Yeah, they can take a 5' step to avoid an AoO, but when their opponent readies a 5' step and Sunder, they're going to be SOL.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 29, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> That some people can be arguing that IRS is overpowered.  One might also say, "Improved Rapid Shot is only really hugely useful for archers, anyway.  The +2 to hit is nice... but not critical."
> 
> Some "+2 to hit" is overpowered, but other "+2 to hit" is "nice, but not critical"?



The +2 bonus from flanking comes at a cost.  The +2 bonus from IRS comes at a cost too, of course - a feat.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 29, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> You also forgot to mention, as a disadvantage, that bows are hella easier to Sunder than swords are.
> 
> Yeah, they can take a 5' step to avoid an AoO, but when their opponent readies a 5' step and Sunder, they're going to be SOL.



If an archer (or spellcaster) is confronted with a bruiser standing next to them and doing nothing on their action (or obviously 'readying', since I believe it's supposed to be apparent when a charcter readies an action), the smart course of action is to perform a double move, not 5' step back and fire.  Because that's what the bruiser is waiting for.  This is assuming the bruiser is considered a threat, of course.  Sure, you didn't get to destroy anything that round, but then neither did the bruiser.


----------



## Scion (Jan 29, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The +2 bonus from flanking comes at a cost.  The +2 bonus from IRS comes at a cost too, of course - a feat.




Of course, creatures can become immune to flanking, they cant become immune to the feat.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2004)

One point why the Archer Ranger may be so viable nowadays: Favored Enemy bonus is damage bonus. Damage bonus is the only problem of the archer.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> If an archer (or spellcaster) is confronted with a bruiser standing next to them and doing nothing on their action (or obviously 'readying', since I believe it's supposed to be apparent when a charcter readies an action), the smart course of action is to perform a double move, not 5' step back and fire.  Because that's what the bruiser is waiting for.  This is assuming the bruiser is considered a threat, of course.  Sure, you didn't get to destroy anything that round, but then neither did the bruiser.



I'd rather take care to have archers with a high movement... single move and shot, preferably tumbling, is lots better if the opponent does not reach you


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 29, 2004)

Don't you mean single move and Manyshot?


----------



## Korak (Jan 29, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Don't you mean single move and Manyshot?




No, actually his mount moves away while he takes a full attack.  Everyone knows mounted archery is superior


----------



## LordAO (Jan 30, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> Improved Precise Shot is also very powerful, as are Rapid Shot and Manyshot.
> 
> Its a pity that melee characters don't have feats that are quite this powerful.




I'm sorry, but Manyshot in 3.5 is PATHETIC. I have never found an instance where Rapid Shot is not better, save one. And that's if you have True Strike, Hunter's Mercy, or another such spell, since all the arrows fired with Manyshot use the same attack roll.


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 30, 2004)

Or if you're limited to a standard action (slowed, readied, etc.), in which case Manyshot is vastly superior.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 30, 2004)

LordAO said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but Manyshot in 3.5 is PATHETIC. I have never found an instance where Rapid Shot is not better, save one. And that's if you have True Strike, Hunter's Mercy, or another such spell, since all the arrows fired with Manyshot use the same attack roll.



You can't take move action & use rapid shot in the same round.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 30, 2004)

LordAO said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but Manyshot in 3.5 is PATHETIC. I have never found an instance where Rapid Shot is not better, save one. And that's if you have True Strike, Hunter's Mercy, or another such spell, since all the arrows fired with Manyshot use the same attack roll.



Agreeing with Spatula and James. Surprise rounds and the move away & shot action do happen rather often in my games 

Or slowed archers.


----------



## The Souljourner (Jan 30, 2004)

You want to know why improved rapid shot is balanced?  No power attack, no cleave, no attacks of opportunity, no flanking, friends providing cover, needing a feat just to remove the -4 from shooting into melee, drawing AoO with every attack, and finally... you're wielding a two handed weapon that only does 1d8 damage and doesn't get 1.5x your strength bonus.

The greatsword wielder over there is laughing at the archer as he dumps feat after feat into this style, whereas he could take skill focus: basket weaving and still out damage the archer.

-The Souljourner


----------



## two (Jan 30, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> You want to know why improved rapid shot is balanced?  No power attack, no cleave, no attacks of opportunity, no flanking, friends providing cover, needing a feat just to remove the -4 from shooting into melee, drawing AoO with every attack, and finally... you're wielding a two handed weapon that only does 1d8 damage and doesn't get 1.5x your strength bonus.
> 
> The greatsword wielder over there is laughing at the archer as he dumps feat after feat into this style, whereas he could take skill focus: basket weaving and still out damage the archer.
> 
> -The Souljourner




This doesn't really qualify, in my opinion, as a very thoughtful post.

Nobody is saying archers have no disadvantages; we are pondering if those disadvantages are disadventageous enough. 

It's easy to play the "ha ha" game, "ha ha" goes the archer, full attacking, as the fighter is mauled by a "improved grappling" dire bear (because the melee fighter had to close to attack).  50 points of damage later, the fighter wishes he was elsewhere.

See, it's easy.  

See, it's rather pointless.

I personally, after having run the numbers using spreadsheets supplied by other contributers (note, positive contributers) to this thread, now agree that IRS is not overpowered.  I also don't think archers are in an way underpowered, even compared against a boring "raging charging barbarian with a greatsword".


----------



## slingbld (Jan 30, 2004)

LordAO said:
			
		

> Precise Shot only matters in a specific situation (while firing into a melee). That doesn't happen all the time (or even most of the time). And you won't be getting a +4 to hit on every attack just because you have that feat. It is merely cancelling a penalty that occasionaly comes into play.




I would have to disagree with precise shot hardly comming into play. The group I am currently GMing has 2 tanks & 2 archers. THe archers fire into melee EVERY combat. The tanks take the brunt of the assault while both archers rapid shot into the fray. Now precise shot negates a -4 penalty that IMHO occurs (or can occur) quite often. (I see it frequently in my home games as well as in the Living Greyhawk gaming sessions in my area). I see no problem with improved rapid shot. Yes it negates a -2 penalty for something that an archer will ALWAYS do. But I see it as being ballanced. provide a +4 bonus in limited circumstances or a +2 in more frequent circumstances.  
And as stated earlier, you need to burn 4 feats in order to be able to do that. That is a lot of feat investment. When you consider that many archers are not pure fighters but rather fighter/ ranger or fighter/ wizard(sorcerer) combo classes, that is a large number of feats for a +2 bonus...


----------



## James McMurray (Jan 30, 2004)

Yeah, Precise Shot is most definitely an "almost every battle" occurrence in my games. The only time it doesn't come into play is if the spellcasters and archers nuke the for before it gets close.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Once again, I encourage people to try the feat out. Check and see how many times it makes the difference between a miss and a hit. That'll be the *only* way to know how powerful the feat is in your game. Running the numbers may be fun, but they lack meaning unless placed in context, and each campaign is an incredibly different context. I play in one game where an archer could probablt use rapid shot in every combat. I play in another where the archer will almost certainly die if he stands in the same place long enough to use a full attack. In one of those games, this would be a nice feat. In the other, this would be a horrible joke of a feat.

I'm being really repetitive with this point because I think too many people ignore it. That is their right, but it leads to long discussions on message boards that tend to focus on the 'trees' rather than the 'forest' and result in people complaining about things that look bad on paper, but are fine in practical use. If you see something that appears to be problematic, your best approach is to see if it actually causes problems in a game before assuming that the prblems are more than illusions.


----------



## Scion (Jan 30, 2004)

It is exactly for those points why running the numbers is more important than seeing it in play. The numbers are the same, whereas any campaign might change everything. To know if it is over/underpowered you have to compare it with a lot of different variables, putting them into campaign specifics ruins the whole effect.

In your campaign it might be that there is no such thing as a bow, so any archery feats that are out there are always underpowered. But this has no meaning on whether or not the mechanics are or not.

Discussions here are about mechanics, when those are more or less agreed upon to be all right then it is time for the campaign specifics to fly in (generaly in houserules) to make things fit appropriately into actual campaigns.

The basis is made first as best as possible (running the numbers) and after that adjustments are made on a campaign by campaign basis, going the other way around (or ignoring the numbers) will just wind up causing headaches.

Numbers have a certain elegance to them, and are difficult to dispute when used properly, but everyones campaign world is different, generally drastically so.


----------



## two (Jan 30, 2004)

*Well we can see the trees, not the forest*

The problem with your take on things (everything dependent upon the campaign), is that sometimes people want to discuss thing "across" campaigns, i.e. in a general way.

The argument you just made, that a feat is campaign-specific and needs to be judged within a campaign, could be true of any other feat you make up, no matter how lame-brained.  Hey GM, I have a new feat that allows you to cast 2x the number of spells that a character is typically allowed. Is it fair or balanced?  It could be, if the campaign world has almost no magic/very rare magic, and there were no spellcasting PC's.

However, it's also plenty true we can talk about this feat "across" campaigns and justly comment, "it's hella overpowered, stupid, and get rid of it."

It's not a wrong judgement, even if the feat is balanced in some specific campaign settings.

So, what we are doing is, yes, more difficult than simply saying "hey, in the campaign world I'm playing is it's fine, but since I can't explain all the details of that world, just take my word on it."

Or, "it's overpowered in my world, ... etc. etc. take my word on it."

There are generalizations that can be made about classes, feats, and weapons, that are true most of the time.  Monks don't do a lot of straight melee damage (exceptions occur).  Bards don't typically overwhelm with their magic (exceptions occur).  Greatswords deal more damage than daggers (exceptions occur).

I'm looking for that sort of judgement "across" campaigns regarding Improved Rapid Shot.  It may be too close a call; really not that good or that bad outside of specialized campaign settings; which is fine.

It might indeed be the case that it's 100% campaign dependent.  Or not.

But don't act like we are being somehow naive or silly to make such an investigation.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Numbers have a certain elegance to them, and are difficult to dispute when used properly, but everyones campaign world is different, generally drastically so.



Numbers have a certain simplicity to them. That is why we trust them so much. We can look at them and feel like we understand what is going on. 

The problem, however, is that numbers are deceptive in their simplicity. When you apply numbers to a situation as complex as a role playing game, the numerical analysis falls far short of capturing a complete picture. At best, it can serve as an untrustworthy tool. At worst, it leads you to conclusions that are true for only a limited set of circumstances, but are applied to a far wider range of situations ... leading to common belief in falsehoods.

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it ... unless they make their saving throw versus doom [DC15W].

In the 70s, there was this fad in economic analysis called forecasting (or econometrics). Economists looked at things going on around them, broke those situations down into numbers and then crucnched numbers to predict the future: they predicted the stock market, the market for certain products, unemployment, etc ... Some of the most brilliant minds in the world worked in this area, developing complecated formulas based upon heavily researched data. 

A few decades later, current economists look back at that work and laugh - hysterically in some instances - at how poorly forecasting and econometrics has served us. Some economists continue to tinker in the area, but the 'revolution' that economists of the 70s expected never came. The data was fine and the formulas were well designed , but in the end, most of the world couldn't be broken down into simple formulas that captured enough of the world for forecasting to be accurate as a tool in more than limited situations. 

You can run the numbers all you want. You can compare how much damage an optimal 32 point build character will deal in a full attack when designed as an archer or when designed as a melee fighter. You can look at the difference in damage potential between an optimal archer with and without IRS when doing a full attack action. Analysis like this only captures an insignificant portion of the equation we call balance. Each of these different comparisons implicitely makes assumptions about the situation in which they would be used by not capturing certain variables (and thus effectively holding them fixed). 

Large scale game mechanics, like feats, are too complex to be broken down into simple numbers. Sure, you can easily break down the chances of a PC making one particular saving throw, but it is impossible to assess a comparitive value on a feat that grants a bonus on that saving throw until you have a context to know how often that saving throw will come up, what the effect of a failed saving throw will be, etc ... The determination of whether a feat is 'balanced' must be based upon trial and error experience rather than upon numbers that can not hope to catch all the significant variables involved.

Simply put: Math is going to lead you down the wrong path unless you can put it in context. Doing this type of analysis and putting faith into it without applying it to game situations is nothing more than mental masturbation. You may enjoy doing it, but in the end, nothing good is going to grow out of it. And you'll get mental hairy palms and go mentally blind.

Hear me! Math is your False God! Deny it and be blessed by the wisdom of Trial and Error!

I've had my say. You folks can go back to your analysis.


----------



## Scion (Jan 30, 2004)

I understand what you are trying to say, but i definately disagree with the answer you get from it 

This game is not as complex as economics, most feats can be broken down into a simple numbers game, and in fact the whole baseline game is just a series of fairly simple equations.

That is just it though, the whole system, the whole game in fact is simple. Incredibly so. You roll a d20 which you can give a probability curve to, you have +#'s which directly correspond to a certain change in the curve, and you have dc's for the various problems. all of this is incredibly easy, and if you were able to make the rolls millions upon millions of times it will make that curve.

This makes it easy enough to say average damage, average chance to hit, average this and that. Theses averages are directly comparable.

This is no where near the same thing as the economic guessing that went on, you are talking about a system with rules that arent fully known/understood on an incredibly epic scale in a fairly chaotic system..

vs d&d where we can easily see the equations and how they interact.

simple vs complex.. easy to understand vs nigh impossible.. Ax^2 + Bx + C vs chaos theory.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> This game is not as complex as economics, most feats can be broken down into a simple numbers game, and in fact the whole baseline game is just a series of fairly simple equations.



As complex as economic conecepts trrying to encompass all significant aspects of world markets? No. Too complex for simple numbers to capture more than a small component issue? Yes.

The simple equations you refer to are truly simple. The problem is that they only capture an insignificant aspect of the game. It is easy to calculate the increase in the expected damage that you'll deliver to an AC 20 foe when your AB goes from +13/+13/+8 to +15/+15/+10 because you gained IRS. What is impossible to capture with these numbers is how valuable that increase in expected damage will be to your character because there are too many other variables to capture in your simple math. Capturing one instance is easy, capturing the value of repeated and widely altered instances occuring at unknown intervals is impossible.

D&D is far more complex than you give it credit for being. Trying to build mathematical models to express relative values of components of the game is an impossibly difficult process. How often the feat will be used is a huge component of how valuable it will be to a PC. None of the equations shown so far can handle this variable aspect of the balance analysis. Without showing that information, any analysis of the effectiveness of the feat is incomplete (and misleading if used to reach a conclusion).

Let me put it this way: Draw a conclusion for me. Look at the analysis mentioned above and draw any one conclusion from it *regarding the value of IRS to a PC*. Express it in mathematical terms. Then, I'll discuss that analysis.


----------



## Scion (Jan 30, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> As complex as economic conecepts trrying to encompass all significant aspects of world markets? No. Too complex for simple numbers to capture more than a small component issue?




No.



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way: Draw a conclusion for me. Look at the analysis mentioned above and draw any one conclusion from it *regarding the value of IRS to a PC*. Express it in mathematical terms. Then, I'll discuss that analysis.




All right, read the rest of the thread, start on page one


----------



## slingbld (Jan 30, 2004)

Keep it civilized folks   

This thread is beginning to sound like a flame war. 

Now I like a good flaming war as much as the next guy but they do tend to get long threaded   

Slinglbd~


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> All right, read the rest of the thread, start on page one



I have. Reread my request. Look at the analysis mentioned above and *draw any one conclusion* from it *regarding the value of IRS to a PC*. Express it in mathematical terms. Then, I'll discuss that analysis.


----------



## Scion (Jan 30, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I have. Reread my request. Look at the analysis mentioned above and *draw any one conclusion* from it *regarding the value of IRS to a PC*. Express it in mathematical terms. Then, I'll discuss that analysis.




Other than all of the graphs, charts, opinions, and other such things from a lot of different posters I just cant imagine what else you want. You can look at the numbers, testimonials, opionions, whatever.. it is all there already. People have been very thorough on this thread. Either you are able to come to a conclusion at this point or you never will it seems.


----------



## Korak (Jan 30, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I have. Reread my request. Look at the analysis mentioned above and *draw any one conclusion* from it *regarding the value of IRS to a PC*. Express it in mathematical terms. Then, I'll discuss that analysis.




The math is useful because I put it in a context.  I took a nearly optimal situtation for the power of the feat to show itself.  I tried to break it by analyzing a character designed to have a very high hit bonus and damage bonus.  Then I looked at the difference between his damage with and without the feat in optimal conditions (all full attacks).  The reason for all this, is that if you look at what happens in the most favorable situation for the feat and it proves to be no more powerful than a very standard PHB feat (weapon specializtion in this case), then you see that the feat can't be overpowered in most campaigns.  You missed the context for the math.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Other than all of the graphs, charts, opinions, and other such things from a lot of different posters I just cant imagine what else you want. You can look at the numbers, testimonials, opionions, whatever.. it is all there already. People have been very thorough on this thread. Either you are able to come to a conclusion at this point or you never will it seems.



I'm asking you to choose your favorite conclusion from the data in this thread regarding the balance of this feat. I want you to choose one conclusion from all that information.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 30, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> The math is useful because I put it in a context.  I took a nearly optimal situtation for the power of the feat to show itself.  I tried to break it by analyzing a character designed to have a very high hit bonus and damage bonus.  Then I looked at the difference between his damage with and without the feat in optimal conditions (all full attacks).  The reason for all this, is that if you look at what happens in the most favorable situation for the feat and it proves to be no more powerful than a very standard PHB feat (weapon specializtion in this case), then you see that the feat can't be overpowered in most campaigns. You missed the context for the math.



You're saying that you reached a conclusion that this feat is no more powerful than weapon specialization. That it will not result in an increase in PC power greater than that achieved by a PC gaining weapon specialization.

Let's say a PC is ready to select either IRS or weapon specialization as his next feat in a campaign. Your saying that IRS, even in a situation most favorable to it, will not be more powerful than IRS. 

Let's say that combat takes place mostly in outdoor settings with a lot of open space in this campaign. Combats begin at great distances, so the PC gets to use full archery attacks during (effectively) all rounds of combat. 

Before taking the feat, the PC deals d8+4(strength)+2(magic)+d6(fire) [average 14, minimum 8] on a hit. His AB is +12/+7 or +10/+10/+5 when using rapid fire.

The most common encounter, by far, in this campaign are wandering encounters with large packs of CR 1/2 (or less) creatures with 7 hps or less. Each of these foes has an AC of 14 to 20. Orcs, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, etc ... These creatures attack in large numbers in order to be effective.

Each shot by that archer will kill one of these foes, even if the PC rolls minimum damage. Having weapon specialization may result in more damage, but not more kills. In this situation, more damage is useless.

IRS, on the other hand, turns 1 out of every 10 attacks from a miss into a hit (on average). When you're making three attacks per round, that adds up rather significantly. 

In this style of campaign, IRS is vastly more powerful than weapon specialization.

It will also be far more important in any situation in which it is being used frequently and the percentage increase in chances to hit exceeds the percentage increases in damage per hit (such as when you have a high AC foe and you deal a lot of damage per shot ... perhaps a sneak attacking rogue). 

Your conclusion, based upon the very sinsible and well calculated math, ends up in a flase determination because the math doesn't cover the situation fully. Your math lied yo you.


----------



## Korak (Jan 31, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> You're saying that you reached a conclusion that this feat is no more powerful than weapon specialization. That it will not result in an increase in PC power greater than that achieved by a PC gaining weapon specialization...




Congratulations, you found one kind of trivial encounter that is as far away from the best use of weapon specialization as possible, where IRS is more powerful than WS.  I award you a cookie.

If you really feel that it is a good litmus test of a feat to gauge it against trivial encounters where each npc dies in one hit, very well.  After all, I did say 







			
				Korak said:
			
		

> ...then you see that the feat can't be overpowered *in most campaigns.*



If you think hordes of CR(1/2) creatures engaging level 6-8 PCs in wide open terrain falls within the purview of "in most campaigns", then that only proves that you are being quite contrary for the sake of being contrary, or you have had vastly different experiences playing D&D than me.  I tend to prefer the latter explanation, for the moment.

I would counter by pointing out that IRS is a four feat chain with a prereq feat having a qualification of +6 base attack.  So, unless a PC has taken all full base attack classes, and has taken a class level that entitles him to a bonus feat at 6th level, then he won't have IRS that early.  I would say that most characters with IRS will be in the level 8-11 range when they aquire it.  That would have a horde of CR(1/2) npcs not even giving xp to them.  At least it shouldn't give xp.  As for the pure specialist archers that get IRS at level 6... bully for them, they can kill the 3rd mook per turn 10 percent more reliably than a similar archer without IRS (though a +3 weapon as in your example is pretty darn nice for a level 6 pc).  I'd just like to point out that the party's friendly wizard or sorcerer could easily nuke many more than 3 per round into oblivion with fireballs at great range... and the power attack, cleave, great cleave fighters can kill with bows until the poor CR(1/2) schleps get within cleave range and fall like wheat to the scythe to their melee weapons (easily beating 3 kills per round if they are surrounded, or have a reach weapon).

If you run a campaign that is so far from the norm that IRS is overpowered in it... none of us will begrudge you removing it.  I challenge you to describe a scenario that at least 3 other people here will agree is a common occurance in many campaigns where IRS is just _*too powerful*_ for a 4 feat investment on a level 8-20 character.... which btw, is two more feats and two levels later (at the earliest) than weapon specialization.  Hell, rapid shot itself is more powerful than IRS (unless you are in a campaign where you never get to full attack, in which case, you would need rapid shot anyway to qualify for manyshot)... and it's the 2nd feat in the chain.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 31, 2004)

Korak said:
			
		

> Congratulations, you found one kind of trivial encounter that is as far away from the best use of weapon specialization as possible, where IRS is more powerful than WS.  I award you a cookie.



Actually, I mentioned a second big one ... when PCs get a bigger increase in the percentage to hit chance from IRS than they get a percentage increase in damage from weapon specialization ... As an example, A PC that deals an average of 20 per strike but only hits 20% of the time versus his typical high AC foes will get a  bigger increase in expected damage from IRS (from 4 pts per attack to 5 pts) than a character that takes weapon specialization (from 4 pts per attack to 4.4 pts per attack). This type of thing occurs in games with foes that have high ACs or when PCs deal a lot of damage. I'm sure high AC foes and high damage PCs are rare ... it isn't like rangers get precision damage and rogues get to use a bow for sneak attacks ...

My prior post mentioned one example of a much larger section: Extra damage is only meaningful if it results in a foe falling down in fewer attacks. In other words, if you hit an opponent 4 times and take it down with attacks in which you used weapon specialization, weapon specialization only was effectyive if the foe ends up at 0 to -8. If he ends up at -9 or worse, your extra damage was meaningless. An extra point of damage per attack *rarely* accounts to a quicker kill in most combats in amny games.

I could go on and list a lot more situations where the formulas used in this thread fail. Why? Because there are a lot of variables in D&D that are not captured in these simple formulas. 

These formulas provide a general picture, but you need to test their results in many campaigns to know if they are actually representative of a real campaign situation.


----------



## strongbow (Jan 31, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> bigger increase in expected damage from IRS (from 4 pts per attack to 5 pts) than a character that takes weapon specialization (from 4 pts per attack to 4.4 pts per attack)




and spread across a 6 attack full attack (what archers get at 16+ base attack with haste), that amounts to 3.6 more points of average damage for IRS than WS... so, IRS is overpowered why?  The analysis doesn't claim to represent actual results perfectly, but it is good enough to say the feat is within the realm of power that is considered "balanced."


----------



## two (Jan 31, 2004)

I just think jgsugden is being contrary for the sake of being contrary - he has something against making "judgements" or something.

It would be easy enough (for him) to run the numbers in on of the spreadsheets (included in this thread), as I've done, and seen that a very "good case" scenario for an archer (10th level, always within 30', doing full attacks 75% of the time) results in:

Up to 5 "extra" points of damage a round when using IRS vs. not using it.

That's on average less than 2 points of damage per round (3 shots). 

It's not that significant being a high-level feat. 

For non-optimal situations (outside 30', less full attack possibilities) the average damage per round drops significantly.  I also used a rather optimal weapon for the level (a +1 holy bow) in the example, it's better than a +3 bow by far for the archer.

This indicates to me that, across campaigns, the feat is balanced.  Sometimes you will do more than 5 average per round (a ranger shooting at his most hated enemies), and lots of the time you will do less, it all evens out in the end.

At least, that's what the numbers indicate, and I believe them.  It makes "sense" to me and the campaigns I've played in, as well.

I have no fear of making a judgement.  I call "Improved Rapid Shot" fair ACROSS CAMPAIGNS and not game breaking; powerful, but as it should be for being a high-tier feat.

Done.

Out.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 31, 2004)

*Sigh*

Regarding IRS/WS, I was refuting Korak's statement that IRS was never more powerful than WS. I was not trying to establish that IRS is 'better' or 'worse' than WS. I showed two examples where his numbers had failed him because those numbers failed to incorporate reasonable variables/aspects of the game. I was not trying to prove IRS is too powerful. In fact, my original point is that you can't trust numbers to prove that IRS is too strong or too weak.

I've said my peace. I strongly believe in my advice: Don't trust the numbers, trust your experience. If you want to take my advice, I think it will serve you well. If you don't ... well ... I still hope things turn out nicely for you.

I'm now done with this thread. I have nothing further to add.


----------



## Nail (Feb 2, 2004)

Huh.  A bit of a flame war, eh?  That's too bad.

Anyway, back On Topic:
   It looks like IRS is probably balanced _in a typical campaign_, given the length of the feat chain and the increase in average damage over _Rapid Shot_.  Still, it's a close thing, and I wouldn't blame anyone for removing IRS from their game.  In a campaign with a lot of "mooks" (# of PCs << # of monsters), this feat is probably *too* good.  In a campaign with lots of "boss monsters" (# of PCs >> # of Monsters), it's just an "okay" feat.

Note: The # of Monsters per PC is far more important than hp in the analysis.  Think about that.  Remember, in D&D, we assume that APL = EL, much of the time.  So hp of monsters scale with APL.  (APL = Average Party Level)



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ... I check for a natural 1 always failing at lower ACs, but don't bother checking for needing a natural 20 to hit the higher ACs.




Actually, the equation I gave above handles both the "always miss on a 1" _and_ "always hit on a 20".  At least...I'm pretty darn sure it does.  I'd be willing to hear proof otherwise.

Here it is again:

P = Min[Max(21 - AC + Atk, 1),19]/20

where:
"P" = probability to hit with an attack
"AC" = opponent's AC
"Atk" = attacker's total attack bonus (BAB, Str, Magic, Iterative Attack penalty, etc), and 
"Min" & "Max" = are functions within the Excel spreadsheet, finding either the smaller (Min) or larger (Max) of two numbers.

Just take that "P" and multiply it by your expected average damage per attack, and you've got it.  Don't forget the criticals.  [1 + Pc(M-1)] , where:
"Pc" = percent chance to critcal (typically 5 - 10%), and
 "M" = critical multiplier



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Anyone figure out how Power Critical (adds +4 to confirm a threat) would enter the calculations? Nail's provided the basic formula (sans feat) a page or two back, but how do you account for a 20% increased chance to confirm?



I'm still working on that.  At higher threat ranges, my simple equation above breaks down.   Surely someone else has already derived the formula?  Here's your chance to show me up!


----------



## Korak (Feb 2, 2004)

nail said:
			
		

> I'm still working on that.  At higher threat ranges, my simple equation above breaks down.   Surely someone else has already derived the formula?  Here's your chance to show me up!




Here is my average damage formula for an attack.  The logic part of it is expressed in an excel "if" statement, but I changed all the cell references to represent what each quantity is.  Hopefully the logic of the formula will become apparent with that change.

=(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))>2,(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))>19,0.05,(1-((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))/20)))) ,0.95))*(Average Weapon Damage + Damage Bonus(Strength + Weapon Specialization + Divine Favor, etc) + Power Attack*Power Attack Multiplier + (Average Sneak Attack Damage and other types… e.g. elemental, if applicable) + (IF((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))>19,0.0025,(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))<3,(0.95*(1.05-(Threat Range (expressed as the first number in the x-20 range e.g. 17 if the threat range is 17-20)*0.05))),((1-((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))/20))*((21-Threat Range)*0.05)))))*((Critical Multiplier - 1) * Subject_to_Crits? (1 if yes, 0 if no) * (Damage Bonus (as defined above) + Power Attack*Power Attack Multiplier + Average Weapon Damage)))

As for power critical, you need simply make the following changes...

=(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))>2,(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))>19,0.05,(1-((AC-(Attack Bonus-Power Attack))/20)))) ,0.95))*(Average Weapon Damage + Damage Bonus(Strength + Weapon Specialization + Divine Favor, etc) + Power Attack*Power Attack Multiplier + (Average Sneak Attack Damage and other types… e.g. elemental, if applicable) + (IF((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))>19,*.05*.25*,(IF((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))<3,(0.95**(1.25-(Threat Range*0.05))*),((1-((AC-(Attack Bonus – Power Attack))/20))**((25-Threat Range)*0.05)*))))*((Critical Multiplier - 1) * Subject_to_Crits? (1 if yes, 0 if no) * (Damage Bonus (as defined above) + Power Attack*Power Attack Multiplier + Average Weapon Damage)))

The bolded changes take care of the increased chance to confirm.

*1.25-(Threat Range*0.05)* is an equivalent expression to *(25-Threat Range)*0.05* ...no real reason for having it appear in two different forms in the overall formula, I just felt like it, I suppose.  That is what happens when you add new features to old formulas over time  .

My formula runs an if statement to divide attack rolls into those that hit on a 2+, those that hit only on a 20, and those that require rolls of 3-19.  Then it figures average damage for the basic hit.  Next it figures the chance for a crit, and the increase in damage for that crit.  It only applies the extra damage to the total if the user indicates that the target is subject to crits.

The basic flow of the equation is this:

=(IF ( ( AC - (Attack Bonus)) > 2 , (IF ((AC - (Attack Bonus)) > 19 , 0.05 , (1 - ((AC - (Attack Bonus)) / 20)))) , 0.95)) * (Average Damage + (IF ((AC - (Attack Bonus)) > 19, 0.0025 , (IF ((AC - (Attack Bonus)) < 3 , (0.95 * (1.05 -(Threat Range * 0.05))) , ((1 - ((AC - (Attack Bonus)) / 20)) * ((21 - Threat Range) * 0.05))))) * ((Critical Multiplier - 1) * Subject_to_Crits? * (Average Damage)))

Here it is in more simplified terms:

Avg Dmg = Chance to hit * Avg Dmg + Chance to Crit * Dmg on crit above a normal hit

*** To make the changes for power critical into something the user can toggle... you just need to add a 0,1 flag and change the following

*.05*.25* to *.05*((PowerCriticalFlag*.20)+.05)*

*1.25-(Threat Range*0.05)* to *(1.05+(PowerCriticalFlag*.2))-(Threat Range*0.05)*

and

*(25-Threat Range)*0.05* to *((21+(PowerCriticalFlag*4))-Threat Range)*0.05*

***


----------



## Nail (Feb 2, 2004)

Hey Korak!

Brute force, Excel style.  Gotta love it.  

Say, you might try Min and Max functions instead of all of those "if...then" statements.  Less code.  
Looks like you could get rid of some extra parentheses too...it would make bug squashing easier.

My brain hurts just looking over your code.  

....it must be right!


----------



## slingbld (Feb 2, 2004)

Hrmmm, Flame wars. Feels like home
(check my toon)
<--------


----------



## DrSpunj (Feb 2, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> P = Min[Max(21 - AC + Atk, 1),19]/20
> 
> Don't forget the criticals. [1 + Pc(M-1)]



<sigh> I miss math! 

I really enjoyed doing stuff like this in undergrad, when I was actually using it near daily and could put that part of my brain to good use. Now it's only engaged once a month for doing bills (yes, that part of my brain is now lazy & stupid! )

Those are just...elegant, Nail. Damn. I would love to take the time to redo my spreadsheet with better functionality and slicker formulas, but I'm not an Excel wizard (I can't even figure out how to add a Yes/No menu choice for things like PBS) and don't honestly have the time to devote to a project like that.

Still, I might take time to tinker with it at some point.


----------



## Korak (Feb 2, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Hey Korak!
> Say, you might try Min and Max functions instead of all of those "if...then" statements.  Less code.
> Looks like you could get rid of some extra parentheses too...it would make bug squashing easier.




Excellent point.  I usually start with If statements because that is the way my brain thinks best.  Of course, depending on your available computing power, and other considerations, like bug checking; other functions are more elegant.  I should strive to simplify in subsequent revisions, if not from the start.  By the way, I do have some fun Min/Max functions on the second tab of my sheet, though   . Check 'em out.

...and sorry about the mini-flame war.  Sometimes I can get a bit more inflammatory than I should because most of my DnD rules "discussions" are with my good friends and roommates, and well, we don't mind the name calling and smacktalk.  So, apologies for the incendiary that I lumped in with my points JGSugden.  You aren't, perchance related to Molly Sugden are you?


----------



## two (Feb 3, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh.  A bit of a flame war, eh?  That's too bad.
> 
> Anyway, back On Topic:
> It looks like IRS is probably balanced _in a typical campaign_, given the length of the feat chain and the increase in average damage over _Rapid Shot_.  Still, it's a close thing, and I wouldn't blame anyone for removing IRS from their game.  In a campaign with a lot of "mooks" (# of PCs << # of monsters), this feat is probably *too* good.  In a campaign with lots of "boss monsters" (# of PCs >> # of Monsters), it's just an "okay" feat.
> ...





This rather confuses me, and goes against the numbers I ran.  IRS is ok but not great when the AC of the enemy is rather low (from 15-20).  That's because removing the -2 is not that important, since you hit the mooks most of the time anyway.  There is an increase in damage, but it's on the order of 2-3 per round (total hitpoints).

Where IRS, in my little sample, really shines in vs the high AC opponents.  Removing the -2 penalty when attempting to hit AC30 or 35 is very significant, and makes a much bigger increase in damage per round (around 5 or so).

So, my number indicate that IRS is best against the guys you really care about (high AC BBEG's) and only so-so vs. the mooks.

(I mean, what level 10 archer is going to miss an AC15 mook even on an iterated shot, even with rapid shot up?  +5bab +5 dex +3 bow +1 bracers - 2 rapid shot = +12 to hit, i.e. hit on a 3 or less on your worst shot.  +13 to hit within 30', etc.).


----------



## Nail (Feb 4, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> This rather confuses me, and goes against the numbers I ran.



Sorry, 'bout that.  I'm already on to the "next part" of this subject.

It's true IRS is excellent against high AC opponents.  We've all agreed on that.

In addition, an archer has an inherent advantage over the melee monster.  He may take a full attack each round, whereas the melee monster might have to spend some move actions getting from bad guy to bad guy.

The archer can switch targets whenever he kills an opponent; the melee monster may or may not have that chance.  Thus my statement above.


----------

