Should I allow Precise shot without point blank shot?

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all

Now, I am pretty adverse to homebrew, but there is one houserule I have been considering and want your opinion.

First up, I am not adverse to feat taxes. Power attack before cleave, that fine. Mounted combat before other mounted combat feats, etc. It means more careful planning, and those early feats are often useful right through the game.

Second, I have modified one feat already that is the beginning of a feat chain. Dodge is a +1 flat dodge bonus in my games. You only need to "pick" an attacker if a later feat requires such a target.

But Dodge is still required for its feat tree.

What I am proposing is to keep Point Blank Shot as a feat, and as it currently exists in the text, but disconnect it from its feat tree. So Precise Shot and Rapid shot become the first feats in their tree. I might keep far shot as requiring point blank though.

My thinking is 2 fold. In its current form, point blank shot just prevents people from playing non-human archers for a level 1 game. Archers take far too long to come online otherwise and are useless outside of very specific low level battles. The second part is that I have only ever seen the bonuses from PBS used ONCE in 4 years of play. Every archer build has it, but even with scouts, if you end up within the distance of PBS, you just draw hand to hand weapons and join the melee, where you can make use of flanking.

If I do disconnect PBS, will it destroy my early game balance? And which feats (given that I am keeping most feat chains as they are) should I leave requiring it?

Thanks

EDIT: Looking deeper into my allowed books, there are a lot of feats outside of SRD that require JUST PBS and also make flavorful and mechanical sense (and require being within 30 feet). From the looks of it, I would just be disconnecting Precise Shot and its derivatives and Rapid Shot and its derivatives. I might also disconnect Woodland Archer because it already has a +6 BAB requirement, and Aquatic Shot, because its only useful underwater.

[Hal0Badger]

I would say do it.

I would say even remove dodge from the preq. as well for feat taxes. I fail to realize how you would need *dodge* to whirlwind attack, at all.

[Deophaun]

Assuming you let people play wizards, druids, clerics, and sorcerers, it's not going to even begin to touch your game's balance.

The question isn't whether or not a feat is useful; it's whether it's useful enough to justify taking up very limited character resources. A torch is useful. However, just because it has use does not justify giving it a 10,000gp price tag. This is the problem with PBS, Precise Shot, Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Spec/Expertise, etc, and why they are often combined. They are overpriced for what they do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Umm..... Small nitpick: if you're close enough for skirmish, you're close enough for point-blank shot unless you extend precision damage range somehow. In mid-to-late game, greater manyshot makes moving in to flank strictly inferior to the barrage of shots from the bow, especially if you've managed to acquire the recommended splitting enhancement.

Got no strong feeling one way or the other about the proposed change, just had to pick that nit.

[Albions_Angel]

Thats a good point. Guess I had a mind blank and somehow thought skirmish was within 60 or PBS was within 20 somehow? I dont really know. That said, Ive only seen one ranged scout played in the last 4 years!

I wouldnt worry about me allowing magic chars. The level of game I am used to playing and I am comfortable DMing, Magic users are usually either gishes or buffers. Otherwise they end up either frying the party when they run it to beat up the enemy, or else just sit there waiting for monster to break away so fireball doesnt incinerate the party rogue (yes, I know they get evasion).

Ive gone with removing PBS as a requirement for all feats not directly dealing with range <30', ie feats where PBS would actually work.

[Troacctid]

You should give everyone Precise Shot for free. The -4 penalty for shooting into melee is a stupid rule. There's already a bonus for cover, so it's totally redundant from a verisimilitude perspective. All it does is randomly nerf archery for no reason.

[Pugwampy]

Archers take far too long to come online otherwise and are useless outside of very specific low level battles.

Any fighter starts with two feats . Also because you are committed to burning two feats , it sets your archer apart from any other player who wants to use a bow .

I dont see a problem really considering archery is a super effective combat style . You just stand and shoot from anywhere on the battlefield while your melee counterpart has to move in close .

[Boci]

Any fighter starts with two feats . Also because you are committed to burning two feats , it sets your archer apart from any other player who wants to use a bow .

I dont see a problem really considering archery is a super effective combat style . You just stand and shoot from anywhere on the battlefield while your melee counterpart has to move in close .

In return you deal less damage, do not get to add a state to damage by default, will find it fiddly to add a state to damage (if you're using a composite bow then strength buffs do nothing) and really difficult to use a single stat to modify to hit and damage. Seems like a fair trade off without adding extra feat tax.

I personally give the benefit of precise shot to anyone with PBS firing at a target within 30ft.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Any fighter starts with two feats . Also because you are committed to burning two feats , it sets your archer apart from any other player who wants to use a bow .

I dont see a problem really considering archery is a super effective combat style . You just stand and shoot from anywhere on the battlefield while your melee counterpart has to move in close .Two-handing a longsword is far more effective, especially since Power Attack is virtually all you need for that style of fighting, with Shock Trooper vastly multiplying its usefulness. Even with no feats at all (and a good Str score), it's still better in a lot of ways than archery. Archery generally does very little damage, requires a HUGE number of feats, and is really easy to shut down. And it doesn't even work terribly well outside of 30', in which case, you might as well be in melee anyway.

[CasualViking]

**** Point Blank Shot. **** the fiddly tiny bonus that's always right on the line between applying and not applying. **** this speed bump that also takes up table time in the worst way. Just **** it entirely.

[Fizban]

Making Precise Shot available without prerequisites seems like a great idea, but I find that when I look at the model I don't like what happens.

In order for ranged to not dominate simply because it is ranged, there need to be situations where it's just not going to work as well. Part of that is having enclosed areas, but even then you can still shoot from the far end of the room or hallway with allies blocking movement. That leaves two things: soft cover, and shooting into melee penalties. Together they total an effective -8 on ranged attacks, but soft cover is fairly easy to avoid by stepping just a square to the side. That leaves the shooting into melee penalty, the one which is most likely to come up to begin with. The shooting into melee penalty can be removed, but not until you've taken both feats, one of which you probably don't even want (Point Blank Shot). Having Precise Shot effectively be a two feat cost is I think fully intended. Even then it's still an effective +2 per feat when it applies, which is an extremely common situation.

People making ranged attacks without Precise Shot are usually better off switching to melee once their target enters melee, even with one of their allies rather than themselves. With Precise Shot this is no longer true, the guy who made the dash through those arrows keeps getting shot anyway, and dies that much faster.

Apparently your experience has been that even archery builds with Precise Shot will switch to melee when foes get close enough for PBS and move to flank. That's. . . not a problem with PBS or Precise Shot, that's all on them. If you take Precise Shot and then not shoot people when they're in melee that's your own fault. If you're a dedicated archer that is better off switching to melee then you're apparently not a very dedicated archer.

You should give everyone Precise Shot for free. The -4 penalty for shooting into melee is a stupid rule. There's already a bonus for cover, so it's totally redundant from a verisimilitude perspective. All it does is randomly nerf archery for no reason.
Verisimilitude: try shooting a moving target that is focused on dodging you (preferably in a video game). It's quite easy to guess where they're going and land your shots anyway once you know what you're doing. Now try shooting a moving target fighting someone else. Not so easy, since they're responding to someone else from a completely different perspective. It's a whole different trick to learn, almost like a. . . feat.

Like I just said above, without the shooting into melee penalty it's just too easy to shoot people to death. The shooting into melee penalty is one of the DM's tools, a safeguard that says if you can get your guys into melee, even against the designated tank, then most of the party will have to start fighting on their terms instead of just shooting from safety. A dedicated archer can overcome that by paying a bunch of feats, which is okay because then they're an archer and not just a dude with a bow.

[Pugwampy]

I never thought of touching the holy/rubbish gateway feats . Hmmm I think I will take serious consideration in tossing it too . I agree Point blank shot is rubbish .

I still sort of disagree about melee dudes being better . My fave DM loved making lvl 8 war god archer PC,s that dished out on average 100 damage on his turn . Composite bow , rapid shot , high Str and Dex . Heck PF even had some rule that Archer takes no AOO with a thing infront of her . He also enjoyed Vampire Thrust feat . The man was healing while dishing out damage . It adds up when you fine tune your character and you DM is easy going .

I remember mooking my frost giants with 500 hp just to stand equal chance with him

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Making Precise Shot available without prerequisites seems like a great idea, but I find that when I look at the model I don't like what happens.

In order for ranged to not dominate simply because it is ranged, there need to be situations where it's just not going to work as well. Part of that is having enclosed areas, but even then you can still shoot from the far end of the room or hallway with allies blocking movement. That leaves two things: soft cover, and shooting into melee penalties. Together they total an effective -8 on ranged attacks, but soft cover is fairly easy to avoid by stepping just a square to the side. That leaves the shooting into melee penalty, the one which is most likely to come up to begin with. The shooting into melee penalty can be removed, but not until you've taken both feats, one of which you probably don't even want (Point Blank Shot). Having Precise Shot effectively be a two feat cost is I think fully intended. Even then it's still an effective +2 per feat when it applies, which is an extremely common situation.

People making ranged attacks without Precise Shot are usually better off switching to melee once their target enters melee, even with one of their allies rather than themselves. With Precise Shot this is no longer true, the guy who made the dash through those arrows keeps getting shot anyway, and dies that much faster.

Apparently your experience has been that even archery builds with Precise Shot will switch to melee when foes get close enough for PBS and move to flank. That's. . . not a problem with PBS or Precise Shot, that's all on them. If you take Precise Shot and then not shoot people when they're in melee that's your own fault. If you're a dedicated archer that is better off switching to melee then you're apparently not a very dedicated archer.

Verisimilitude: try shooting a moving target that is focused on dodging you (preferably in a video game). It's quite easy to guess where they're going and land your shots anyway once you know what you're doing. Now try shooting a moving target fighting someone else. Not so easy, since they're responding to someone else from a completely different perspective. It's a whole different trick to learn, almost like a. . . feat.

Like I just said above, without the shooting into melee penalty it's just too easy to shoot people to death. The shooting into melee penalty is one of the DM's tools, a safeguard that says if you can get your guys into melee, even against the designated tank, then most of the party will have to start fighting on their terms instead of just shooting from safety. A dedicated archer can overcome that by paying a bunch of feats, which is okay because then they're an archer and not just a dude with a bow.The problem is that archery is full of nickel-and-dime penalties that each require resources to deal with, and several of those are feats. Instead of having feats that actually do positive things, they're merely negating small penalties. The feats themselves don't actually do anything -- certainly not anything worth spending a rare and valuable feat on.

Even worse, those dummy feats are requirements for feats that actually do do stuff, even when the effects of the feats aren't at all related. Why do you need Point Blank Shot for Far Shot? They're both mutually exclusive (one must be within '30, while the other improves your ability to shoot far away), and yet one is a prereq for the other. And then you have things like Rapid Shot, which requires a useless feat as a prereq and is furthermore a prereq for feats which are also mutually exclusive with it (Manyshot and Greater Manyshot). So instead of having feats which are complementary, like Power Attack and Cleave (one makes it easier to kill enemies, and the other gives you a benefit when you do so), the archery feat trees are a spastic, mutually exclusive mess.

So you have a bunch of pointless feats that you have to take (much like Dodge and Mobility) in order to take useful feats that mostly don't jive with each other at all.

If you want to keep things generally the way they are, why not combine Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, and Rapid Shot into one feat? It won't even be terribly powerful, as the only real active effects the new feat would have would be Far Shot and Rapid Shot -- and you end up with a feat that's actually worth taking, instead of the hodgepodge mess sitting there in the PHB.

[Ashtagon]

tbh, I'd reorganise most archery feats into just two feats. Call them "Assault Archer" and "Sniper Archer" until a better name comes along. Then those feats that relate to rapid fire or close-in arrow-loosing fall under Assault Archer, and those that relate to long-range precision to Sniper Archer. Create a progression path so that the benefits of each successive feat included into the combined feat come online every few levels instead of all at once.

[Shackel]

If you want to keep things generally the way they are, why not combine Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, and Rapid Shot into one feat? It won't even be terribly powerful, as the only real active effects the new feat would have would be Far Shot and Rapid Shot -- and you end up with a feat that's actually worth taking, instead of the hodgepodge mess sitting there in the PHB.

Presumably so everyone doesn't take one feat and become a master archer. It'd break suspension of disbelief a little if just a human Warrior 1, the equivalent of some fresh city guard you could find at any city, or even a human Commoner 1 peasant drafted into the armor could rain multiple accurate shots into melee at range, with the only difference between them and anyone else being one feat.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Presumably so everyone doesn't take one feat and become a master archer. It'd break suspension of disbelief a little if just a human Warrior 1, the equivalent of some fresh city guard you could find at any city, or even a human Commoner 1 peasant drafted into the armor could rain multiple accurate shots into melee at range, with the only difference between them and anyone else being one feat."Master archer"? Not really. Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot don't even really do anything, do not stack with Far Shot, and none of those three mesh terribly well with Rapid Shot, either. It's one piddly numbers boost, one negation of a nickel-and-dime penalty, one circumstantial benefit (since many encounters occur well within a launcher's range, and most characters can't Spot anything beyond a short distance away due to distance penalties anyway), and one truly useful benefit.

None of those aside from Rapid Shot are even vaguely comparable to feats like Extend and Empower Spell or Power Attack, none of which have a single feat as a prereq, let alone numerous, virtually useless ones.

[CharonsHelper]

You should give everyone Precise Shot for free. The -4 penalty for shooting into melee is a stupid rule. There's already a bonus for cover, so it's totally redundant from a verisimilitude perspective. All it does is randomly nerf archery for no reason.

No - it's not redundant. Firing into melee doesn't inherently mean that there will also be cover.

[Fizban]

The problem is that archery is full of nickel-and-dime penalties that each require resources to deal with, and several of those are feats. Instead of having feats that actually do positive things, they're merely negating small penalties. The feats themselves don't actually do anything -- certainly not anything worth spending a rare and valuable feat on. . .
So you have a bunch of pointless feats that you have to take (much like Dodge and Mobility) in order to take useful feats that mostly don't jive with each other at all.
Yes, that's the point. Archery has to start by climbing out of a hole, because if it was as easy to shoot someone as it is to sword someone, there would be no reason to ever sword. You are speaking from the perspective that ranged attack builds should be easy, which is wrong.

If you want to keep things generally the way they are, why not combine Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, and Rapid Shot into one feat? It won't even be terribly powerful, as the only real active effects the new feat would have would be Far Shot and Rapid Shot -- and you end up with a feat that's actually worth taking, instead of the hodgepodge mess sitting there in the PHB.
Would not keep things how they are in the slightest, and makes for a hilarious laundry list of a "feat." Give away four intentional feat taxes for the price of one? Something that's meant to take at least four levels now available to every 1st level Warrior? If you want ranged combat to be that easy then get rid of all the feats and give it away for free, just don't be surprised when your players realize dps archers are the new top dog and your wars go from medieval armies to trenches.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yes, that's the point. Archery has to start by climbing out of a hole, because if it was as easy to shoot someone as it is to sword someone, there would be no reason to ever sword. You are speaking from the perspective that ranged attack builds should be easy, which is wrong.

Would not keep things how they are in the slightest, and makes for a hilarious laundry list of a "feat." Give away four intentional feat taxes for the price of one? Something that's meant to take at least four levels now available to every 1st level Warrior? If you want ranged combat to be that easy then get rid of all the feats and give it away for free, just don't be surprised when your players realize dps archers are the new top dog and your wars go from medieval armies to trenches.From a game perspective, forcing one player to spend half of his allotment of feats to be less effective as another player who spends one (Power Attack) is seriously bad design. 2d8+2 damage for four feats, or 1d8+8 for one feat? I know which one I'd want.

[Qwertystop]

Perhaps not all of them - but I could see combining Point Blank, Precise and Far Shot, with a fairly simple justification: Better aim and a stronger draw are what you need, intuitively, for Far Shot. Both of those work for Point Blank, and the aim works for Precise. Call it "Practiced Archer". A level one human or elf commoner with that has spent all their feats on that, a level one anything-else can't manage it without being a trained Warrior for the proficiency. Still not as much damage as melee weapons with a Strength bonus unless you pay through the nose for Composite, but you can manage an army of longbow-trained peasants if you start early enough.

Still three very small passive effects, two of which can't stack, two of which are very unlikely to stack, and no active abilities. It's effectively Weapon Proficiency/Focus Plus, for bows.

[Psyren]

I say yes, go for it. In fact, this is just one of the many positive suggestions made in the following article/blogpost: Reducing Feat Taxes in Pathfinder. (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) (It's even more imperative for 3.5, which has even fewer feats available and where archery is at even more of a disadvantage.)

[Telonius]

I get the idea that shooting into melee is supposed to be hard, but the penalty is a pretty major one (the equivalent of taking 8 Dex damage, or being nonproficient) and requires two feats to fix. All that to be able to use a pretty reasonable character type (archer), that's notoriously hard to optimize. I would feel perfectly good about removing the -4 penalty altogether, or folding Precise Shot in to Point Blank Shot.

[Fizban]

From a game perspective, forcing one player to spend half of his allotment of feats to be less effective as another player who spends one (Power Attack) is seriously bad design. 2d8+2 damage for four feats, or 1d8+8 for one feat? I know which one I'd want.
If you completely ignore all the advantages of ranged combat that are the entire reason for using it then sure. This argument might work in a a classic JRPG where there's no difference between ranged and melee weapons except maybe a front row/back row effect, but this is not that. In a game where a competent archer can have two, three, four or more rounds of full attacks before you even reach sword range, that competency must have an appropriate cost. If you can't understand that basic concept I don't know how else I can convey it.

Of course most people don't much care about the difference between melee and ranged combat. They assume that melee is always in range, ubercharging full attacks, so the fact that they can't hit the same numbers with a bow makes it underpowered. This is not something that should be true, but since dungeon is right there in the title many if not most combats will take place in the archer's worst setting. DMs will then look at outdoor encounters and see that with an archer they stop being encounters, so they either don't happen or somehow start within charge range. That's not a feat cost invalidating the archetype, it's encounter design. In game with outdoor encounters, a dedicated archer is terrifying even with all their feats sunk on the one track.

I get the idea that shooting into melee is supposed to be hard, but the penalty is a pretty major one (the equivalent of taking 8 Dex damage, or being nonproficient) and requires two feats to fix. All that to be able to use a pretty reasonable character type (archer), that's notoriously hard to optimize. I would feel perfectly good about removing the -4 penalty altogether, or folding Precise Shot in to Point Blank Shot.
Non-proficiency is actually the perfect comparison for the size of the penalty. As for the reasonable character type, notice how no one's complaining about all the feats and class features you need to make a melee build work? Saying that Power Attack is enough is basically the same as saying Rapid Shot or Precise Shot is enough. No melee character actually rolls up with nothing but Power Attack, they'll have a whole pile of other feats invested in some particular style of melee combat, the same way an archer needs a pile of feats to do theirs.

[CharonsHelper]

If you completely ignore all the advantages of ranged combat that are the entire reason for using it then sure. This argument might work in a a classic JRPG where there's no difference between ranged and melee weapons except maybe a front row/back row effect, but this is not that. In a game where a competent archer can have two, three, four or more rounds of full attacks before you even reach sword range, that competency must have an appropriate cost. If you can't understand that basic concept I don't know how else I can convey it.

I agree - but besides the archer getting full attacks each turn while the melee character might (depending upon terrain) even take multiple rounds to reach combat, melee characters are pretty much hosed against anything which can fly. Eventually they can leverage gear to follow them into the air, but that's a big hurdle which archers don't have to worry about.

Finally, Telonius's math was wrong. A low level archer with rapid-shot & precise will generally be doing 2d8+6. 1 from point-blank, and likely 2 from STR per shot. And if they can get static damage buffs (such as a bard in the party) they gain twice as much damage as the standard melee character does.

Not to mention that in 3.5 Power Attack is rarely even worth using from a DPR perspective. (Solid in Pathfinder until level 12ish - but rather situational in 3.5.)

[Psyren]

Archery has disadvantages too. Lack of bonus or modifier damage means that defenses like DR and regen/fast healing have a disproportionately strong effect on an archer's performance. Archery is also more subject to some obstacles like cover, concealment (especially proximity-based effects like fog) and wind. For spellcasting opponents, archery has a harder time interrupting their spells than melee if the melee can get close (melee can use both readied actions and AoOs, while archery usually must rely on the former alone.)

In short, though archery has a lot going for it, there are enough drawbacks (particularly in 3.5) that I'm okay with buffing it further - which PF has done, via feats like Deadly Aim/Clustered Shots, via properties like Cyclonic, and by modifying the DR rules.

[Hamste]

Archers also get screwed over by the spells themselves as they can easily create obstacles.. Windwall is a common spell that just goes nope as well as spells the obscure sight like fog or walls in general.

[CharonsHelper]

Archery has disadvantages too. Lack of bonus or modifier damage means that defenses like DR and regen/fast healing have a disproportionately strong effect on an archer's performance.

Actually - I think that archery often has fewer issues with DR because it's easy to keep various arrows in your quiver for when needed. Cold iron/silver etc. On the other hand, the melee character is going to have to either power through the DR or use a secondary weapon.

That's not even getting to high levels when archers can have Bane arrows for everything.

And I'm not sure why they would have more trouble with regen/fast healing.


Archers also get screwed over by the spells themselves as they can easily create obstacles.. Windwall is a common spell that just goes nope as well as spells the obscure sight like fog or walls in general.

Windwall stops you for a turn, but by the time it could potentially circle around someone so that you can't just walk around it, you can just fly over it. (it can't have a ceiling) Sure - it makes it so that you can only take a single attack - but your foe just burned their standard action on it. Fair trade.

Normal walls in general mess with all martials pretty equally - not just archers.

Fog etc. - there isn't a 3.5 equivalent of Fogcutting Lenses? (I've been playing Pathfinder for a long time.)

[Deophaun]

Actually - I think that archery often has fewer issues with DR because it's easy to keep various arrows in your quiver for when needed. Cold iron/silver etc. On the other hand, the melee character is going to have to either power through the DR or use a secondary weapon.
Cold iron weapon + Gauntlets of Weaponry Arcane + Ring of Adamantine Touch.

And even if you don't have that, powering through DR isn't that much of a problem when you're dealing 70+ damage a hit.

[Psyren]

Actually - I think that archery often has fewer issues with DR because it's easy to keep various arrows in your quiver for when needed. Cold iron/silver etc. On the other hand, the melee character is going to have to either power through the DR or use a secondary weapon.

"Powering through it" was my point. DR 10/x or even 15/x is not going to be much more than a speed bump for a melee character. The archer though does have to respond to this defense as you noted.



And I'm not sure why they would have more trouble with regen/fast healing.

Lower DPR exacerbates the effectiveness of these defenses.


Windwall stops you for a turn, but by the time it could potentially circle around someone so that you can't just walk around it, you can just fly over it. (it can't have a ceiling)

And this is a great point... if all your battles take place on featureless wide-open plains.

In fact, some of the assumptions you're making (like flight) do a lot more to help the melee than the archer.

But since you mention PF, Cyclonic does help them bypass this issue.



Fog etc. - there isn't a 3.5 equivalent of Fogcutting Lenses? (I've been playing Pathfinder for a long time.)

Straight-up Blindsight/Touchsight I suppose? Though that typically has range limitations.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A fresh first-level archer (human fighter) is sitting on a +3/+3 (1d8 + 1) attack within 30', or +2/+2 (1d8) out to 120'. PBS, PS, RS, 16 dex. Average damage versus AC 15: 45%*11=4,95, or 40%*9=3,6 at range.
Note that the archer can't afford a composite bow yet. If they could, it would bring their average damage (14 strength) up to 45%*15=6.75, or 40%*13=5,2 at range. However, at that point, the landsknecht and Conan below can probably afford masterwork weapons, upping their damage a bit, as well.

A fresh first-level veles (human fighter) is sitting on a +3/+3 (1d6 + 3) attack within 30'. PBS, PS, RS, 16 dex, 14 str. Average damage versus AC 15: 45%*13=5,85.
The veles can only throw a couple of javelins, because they lack Quick Draw, but you can probably start combat carrying four javelins (three off-hand, one main-hand).http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/europabarbarorum/images/9/97/SPQR_Velites.gif/revision/latest?cb=20100505044259That gives you two full attacks.

A fresh first-level landsknecht (human fighter) is sitting on a +4 (2d6 + 6) attack within melee range, plus a free move action. WF, PA, Improved Sunder, 16 str. Average damage versus AC 15: 50%*13=6,5, or without PA, 55%*11=6,05.
Note how the landsknecht isn't using IS to actually do anything useful - it's just a prerequisite for level 6. EWP could add a point of damage, or 10' reach (fullblade and dwarven warpike).

A fresh first-level Conan (human barbarian) is sitting on a +4/+4 (2d6 + 9) attack within melee range (plus strength on the attack and damage rolls). WF, PA, 20 str (rage). Average damage versus AC 15: 50%*32=16, or without PA, 55%*28=15,4. Not raging: equal to the landsknecht.
Whirling Frenzy is only 1/day at this point, so if this is a barbarian dip, Extra Rage is a good pick over WF or PA, but this is simpler.

Comparing the damage within 30' to melee attacks seems fair, as that is where most fights happen, and it's relatively even. The landsknecht and Conan can move and attack or charge, and the archer and veles are getting PBS benefits. It's clear that archers are well behind in melee, though naturally, they are supreme at range. The archer does have the problem that they can't typically attack when threatened (or rather, it can be punished). It's probably fair to balance that against the difficulties of charging. Charging, of course, puts the landsknecht ahead of the archer again, even with a composite bow and combined feats, due to the +2 bonus on attack rolls, with 60%*13=7,8 and 65%*11=7,15.

If we combine Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot, the archer and veles get another +1 to hit, from Weapon Focus. That improves their damage to 5,5, 4,05 and 6,5 respectively, or 7.5 and 5.85 with a composite bow, surpassing the landsknecht, but not near the barbarian, as expected. Initiators, of course, will put melee well ahead of archery, as well.


tl;dr low-OP (with Whirling Frenzy as a bit of an outlier), basic martial characters suck at archery, compared to ye olde claymore-to-the-noggin. Just get rid of Precise Shot as separate feat. Either fold it into Point Blank Shot, or allow fighters to give up heavy armour proficiency for PS (not like archers wear full plate, right?).

[Troacctid]

No - it's not redundant. Firing into melee doesn't inherently mean that there will also be cover.
The whole reason why you get a penalty for firing into melee is because you have to be more careful to avoid hitting an ally. And if your ally is in your line of fire, your target already has a cover bonus to AC because you need to shoot around another person. So yes, it is redundant.


Non-proficiency is actually the perfect comparison for the size of the penalty. As for the reasonable character type, notice how no one's complaining about all the feats and class features you need to make a melee build work? Saying that Power Attack is enough is basically the same as saying Rapid Shot or Precise Shot is enough. No melee character actually rolls up with nothing but Power Attack, they'll have a whole pile of other feats invested in some particular style of melee combat, the same way an archer needs a pile of feats to do theirs.
Imagine if rangers didn't naturally have proficiency with any ranged weapons, and all archery builds had to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (longbow). That's essentially what's happening with the feat tax here.

[Telok]

My beef with Point Blank is that it makes it 12th level before a scout or rogue can grab Crossbow Sniper and get stat (or even any relevant damage at all past 30') to damage without high strength and even more expensive weapons. I know people will argue for volley builds using three or four classes and various action economy tricks. But sometimes simple is nicer, not having to roll six different attacks is faster, or the group you're playing with isn't at the optimization level where character level * 20 is the baseline damage.

The games I've played and ran where we ditched the tax feats did just fine. Someone being a decent archer or such before level 10 didn't adversely affect the CoDzilla or Batman Wizard.

[Metahuman1]

As someone who's done some shooting sports before, to be perfectly blunt, making point blank shot a feat at all is utterly asinine and ignores practically every reality of using a distance weapon, at all. I'm sorry, a target at 30ft is, inherently, with 0 special training needed, easier to hit with the same weapon then a target at 60 or 90 or 120ft.


And if your considered proficient with a ranged weapon, as, say, real world military who are the closest thing to low level D&D characters we have are, you should know, automatically, how to shoot and hit the hostiles, not the friendlys, form all those years of training you took to be considered proficient.



I'd just cut Point Blank Shot at minimum, or better, Precise Shot as well, form all feat trees. Let them go form there.

[Qwertystop]

As someone who's done some shooting sports before, to be perfectly blunt, making point blank shot a feat at all is utterly asinine and ignores practically every reality of using a distance weapon, at all. I'm sorry, a target at 30ft is, inherently, with 0 special training needed, easier to hit with the same weapon then a target at 60 or 90 or 120ft.


And if your considered proficient with a ranged weapon, as, say, real world military who are the closest thing to low level D&D characters we have are, you should know, automatically, how to shoot and hit the hostiles, not the friendlys, form all those years of training you took to be considered proficient.



I'd just cut Point Blank Shot at minimum, or better, Precise Shot as well, form all feat trees. Let them go form there.

I would consider proficiency to be more like "accurate at a shooting range" than "accurate in live combat". Can you hit a stationary person-sized target at thirty feet a bit more than half the time? That's proficient, with BAB 1 and no Dex bonus. Baseline Fighter 1. Non-proficient and not generally combat-trained, that's one shot in four.

[Telonius]

I would consider proficiency to be more like "accurate at a shooting range" than "accurate in live combat". Can you hit a stationary person-sized target at thirty feet a bit more than half the time? That's proficient, with BAB 1 and no Dex bonus. Baseline Fighter 1. Non-proficient and not generally combat-trained, that's one shot in four.

30 feet at a stationary target? I'm pretty sure I could do that when I was a (very scrawny) 12 year old. Looking it up on the NFAA, their "Cub" section, under-12-year-olds, start their shots at a target 10 yards away.

[Qwertystop]

30 feet at a stationary target? I'm pretty sure I could do that when I was a (very scrawny) 12 year old. Looking it up on the NFAA, their "Cub" section, under-12-year-olds, start their shots at a target 10 yards away.

Well, that's what the mechanics add up to. Well, technically "within one range increment", not 30 feet specifically. Got range increments mixed up with PBS range. So actually 60 feet for a shortbow, 100 for a longbow.

The mechanics are unrealistic, sure, but a flat-footed unarmored human or equivalent target, in one range increment of a shooter with BAB 0 and no proficiency, is AC 10 with a -4 to-hit. Hit on 14+, which is 30%: better than one in four, but worse than one in three. And that's completely untrained and of average Dex. Reality is more granular - hire long did it take to start reliably hitting more than half your shots? Call that much training the amount of work needed for either one proficiency feat and one point of BAB (partway to a level), or one proficiency feat and Weapon Focus. That's over a feat worth of work. There's your scale.