Rapid Shot

Ok so as I was reading through the maneuvers this particular one caught my eye in a bad way.
You see it reminds me of a simple tiny difference in some of 4edition's powers that made two classes different for no apparent reason, but let me explain.

You see in 4e you could have a two weapon wielding ranger and a two weapon wielding fighter (aka Tempest fighter) both of whom could use two weapons at a time. BUT the ranger HAD to be the top notch damage dealer vs a SINGLE target, so how do we safeguard that? By putting restrictions to the fighter and telling him that although he can hit two times in his turn, by using two weapons, he can target two creatures ONLY, not one. So the damage is spread and the ranger is not threatened. By the way I am not hating 4e, I am actually a big fan and played a ranger for many levels, but for the argument's sake I continue...

So coming to dnd next I wouldn't like to see restrictions of a similar kind.
In this particular case the rapid shot maneuver. It makes no sence that you HAVE to hit two creatures, even if you want to hit one creature twice. Even as a shot it is more difficult to target two creatures than to target one! These kind of restrictions (see packet : one attack per target) which for our group ruin fun in order to just be "fare" do not belong in dnd next Imo... I don't want to houserule this, there should be another way.

I cant offer an explanation. But it did raise eyebrows in my group as well when we updated to the latest package. In the spirit of playtesting we just ran with it and it was a bit silly at times, but it made sure the archer wasnt ALWAYS rapid shooting.
I quite liked the 3.5 restriction on movement as it had an element of tactics involved "do I move or shoot extra arrows
you know, the feats seem to be going the way of giving class features more than anything. so perhaps a two weapon tree ranger (like rogue specs) would get the two weapon feats for free. sounds like balance to me

EDIT: sorry, should have read the rest of your post. perhaps the archery tree will have rapid shot as an option?
you know, the feats seem to be going the way of giving class features more than anything. so perhaps a two weapon tree ranger (like rogue specs) would get the two weapon feats for free. sounds like balance to me

EDIT: sorry, should have read the rest of your post. perhaps the archery tree will have rapid shot as an option?




Maybe read the first post a third time...

My concern has nothing to do with how characters and which classes will actually get the two weapon feat, nor if rapid shot will be an option in an archery tree...

My concern is the limitation that the maneuver puts into the game. That you HAVE to hit TWO targets, even if you want to hit ONE target TWICE. It makes no sense just as the tempest fighter did not make sense in 4th.

If you are going to comment on a post why not try reading it as a hole before you answer?





As a game designer, I have previously considered the issue at length, and I really have to agree with the designers on this one.

From a game-balance perspective, dealing X damage to two targets is nothing like dealing 2*X damage to a single target.  For one thing, spreading it across two targets prevents you from focusing fire to drop any one target any more quickly, which prevents the battle from actually getting much easier in the case of a boss fight.  For another thing, spreading damage over multiple targets has been in the game for a very long time - albeit mostly from arcane spells - so it's not something new or game-changing in nearly the same way as multiple attacks against the same target.

Even from an in-game perspective, though, it kind of makes sense to me that the Tempest would be limited to different targets - the way a Tempest fights just doesn't lend itself toward both weapons being in the same place at the same time.  It is inconsistent with the Ranger, though, which makes it seem arbitrary, and the same can't really be said for rapid shot - if anything, the aiming requirements should make both shots require the same target.

For what it's worth, in my own works I differentiate Rapid Shot from Manyshot by allowing the former to strike the same target while the latter requires different targets.  I do the same thing for Flurry (one-target) and Cleave (multi-target).  Cleave and Manyshot are both "easier" tricks to learn, with fewer pre-requisites and less resource expenditure than Flurry or Rapid Shot.

The metagame is not the game.

I quite liked the 3.5 restriction on movement as it had an element of tactics involved "do I move or shoot extra arrows




That!

I like that they're simplifying the Actions System in 5ed, removing things like Swift, Partial, Minor actions and whatever else.
Or that we won't have that huge amount of feats and abilities and whatnot to move you 5ft this way or 10ft that way.

It was a great system! But such level of detail in the movement/actions system only played fully well when using grids/miniatures.
Otherwise much of it was lost in the limbo of gameplay, and many such options and feats were never used.

The new: Move + Action + Reaction only system deals quite alrighty with all we need and it's less to track during combat.

HOWEVER, I strongly suggest that Full-Round Actions are also kept in the 5ed.
The 5ft move that accompanied full-rounds can easily be dropped so as not to flood the move/actions system with minor details, if the idea is to simplify.
Make it so that when you use a full-round action, you can't also move in the round, at all.

Or, if developers are reluctant in adding that extra nomenclature, they can build-in that in the description of each feat/ability.

For example, "when you use Rapid Shot you shoot an extra arrow, on any target, but you can't move that turn."

Full-Round Actions, whether you call them that or not, are a GREAT system to balance some more powerful feats and abilities.
Full Action degenerated 3E combat into everyone mostly just standing still and trading blows.

On the contrary.
Having to stay in place to be able to deliver multiple blows made combat much more tactical.

If you could move AND have multiple strikes then it would be all a simple trade of blows whether you and the opponents moved or not.
But the fact that you couldn't, forced you to chose between mobility and more attacks (or a single, more powerful attack that required full-round).
Many times it was just not smart to stand in place just to possibly deal more damage.

Not to mention the many strategies you could use to force an opponent into disadvantage.
Getting up from the ground, for instance, required a move action, which prevented one from performing a full-round.
So why not have someone in your party try to Trip that TWF opponent and force him to forfeit his many attacks or remain prone?

Just as well, why not forfeit your own multiple bow-shots but instead keep moving every round while firing a single shot to avoid that band of orcs from quickly getting near you?
Or perhaps fire a single shot only that round so you can move to reach cover from another ranged opponent.

When a player has to choose between this or that action, it creates margin for different strategies.
If your 3ed players were only standing still and trading blows I regret to say they were missing out a lot of options the game allowed them. 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the mechanical benefits of such a restriction. Having to spread your damage around is totally different to hitting the same target twice, I get it. I played most of 4e as a ranger so I know of these merits :D

The thing is, it feels too artificial for our group.
Even if the tempest fighter as an archetype would probably hit two targets how do I, as a player, accept that restriction? Just because the rules say that a tempest fighter usually is all over the place, how do I accept the fact that in a fight vs many I can hit twice but vs a solo monster I can only hit once? When I visualise the character it's almost funny!

It feels too restricting to me, and to be honest I see this maneuver as an opening for the ranger class. What I mean is that I expect the ranger will have the freedom of hitting a single target twice just because we artificially want him to, just to give him massive dmg potential. Just because!

Maybe the "full round" kind of rule is the solution to rapid shot, I really don't know. The thing is that although it seems fair from a dmg perspective it feels too mechanical and I really want this solved and not houseruled.


Sign In to post comments