Weapon Master : Bow, seems very weak.

[mfarnan]

A Weapon master with a Sword gets the Following.
- Improved Rapid Strike (-3 instead of -6)
- Improved Parrying (-2 instead of -4 for successive parries)
- Access to Cinematic Abilites.
- Damage Bonus. Most Weapon masters are Warrior types, with a decent strength etc, so are going to have good base damage and skill. This will NORMALLY result in 2D+? base damage which gives +4 dmg bonus.

Example: (This is the damage of a Character in my current 200 pt Fantasy Game).
A Warrior with ST 14, Skill DX+4 (16) and WM using a Greatsword does 4D dmag ( SW 2D, Sword is SW+3 for 2D+3, add WM of +4, and thats 2D+7, or 4D using Dice mod rules).
He can hit you, twice a round, at skill 13 (Rapid Strke, skill -3 for both under WM), for 4D of damage...


A Weapon master with a BOW gets the Following.
- Access to Cinematic Abilites.
- Damage Bonus. Bow's are thrust dmg, so getting basic damage up to 2D is Incredibly hard, therefore the most they will ever likely get from it is +2.

Example (Another character from my current 200pt Fantasy game)
Ranger: ST 14, Bow DX+4 (16) and WM using a Composite Longbow.
Assuming she is close (range penalty -3) so using the same skill as the warrior. She can hit you once every THREE rounds for 2D+2 damage. (Every TWO rounds if using Fast Draw Arrow) and that assumes no time to Aim.

Thurst is 1D, Bow is Thrust+3, WM adds further +2 for 1D+5 or 2D+2.
No Speed up to attacks, No improvments to defence


I am aware of the differences between ranged attacks and melee, Impaling vs Cutting dmg here etc. My issues is the apparent (significant IMO) disaprity between WM for a the Meleeing Warrior vs the Bow ranger, for the SAME 20 points.

Any Ideas ?

[lunar]

Um... the bow guy can hit from farther away?

[mlangsdorf]

I'd probably give the Bow Master the auto-aim ability from Gunslinger, and let her load and fire in one round at -3 if she makes her Fast-Draw roll at -3. It's not quite equivalent, but it makes the advantage worth a bit more.

[cccwebs]

The point costs seem appropriate. The Bow Weapon Master doesn't do as well as the Sword Weapon Master in short range combat. But add in Zen Archery, and that Bow Master will own the Sword master at any decent range (which any decent archer is gonna want to be at anyway). Add in Power Blow at a skill of 20 and you get a 50/50 chance of doubling your ST with that arrow when you attack instantly.


ex. Say starting at 50 yds apart you have a melee master and a bow master, each with a current move of 4 (due to encumberance). Turn 1, the melee master has to move in (now 46 yds apart), the bow master fast-draws and arrow. Turn 2, melee guy moves in sprinting (41 yds), the bow guy concentrates on Zen Archery (-10 to skill). Turn 3, melee moves in (36 yds), bow concentrates (-5 to skill). Turn 4, melee closes in (31 yds), archer concentrates (-4 to skill). Turn 5, melee closes in (26 yds), archer concentrates (-4 to skill). Turn 6, melee closes in (21 yds), archer concentrates (-3 to skill). Turn 7, melee closes in (16 yds), archer uses zen archery at -3 to skill. If successful he targets the eyes for a total modifier of -5 to bow skill **(-6 for range, -9 for eyes, divided by 3). A successful hit will blind the target and most likely drop him out of combat as well (damage x4 with no max on damage and HT/10 damage causing blindness and knockdown rolls at -10). A miss and the archer can always try for a nornal shot again in 2 seconds. (Less than the time it takes for the melee to get into range with his weapon). If the combat starts farther apart, the archer has even more time to concentrate with Zen Archery.


** This is of course dependent on whether or not your GM rationalizes location to hit penalties as a "size modifier" or as just a penalty. If the GM considers them like a size modifier then Zen Archery works great, if not then you don't get to divide the -9 by 3.

[LoganSaj]

I think you guys may be missing mfarnan's point. And, IMHO ... I agree with him.

First, he already admitted to knowing the difference between ranged vs. melee. I think he is simply talking about lack of options/ability that come with the same price tag. If a simple bowman and swordsman were matched against one another, the bowman would have the range advantage over the swordsman - without the weapons master. Why pay more points for something you already have?

Secondly, if a bowman HAS to buy powerblow at 20 and zen archery, doesn't that just prove mfarnan's point? I mean, the archer is required to buy additional options beyond the single advantage just to make up the slack? Doesn't sound balanced in and of itself.

I like the direction mlangsdorf is going. Give the archer more options to make up for the lack of diversity with the advantage. Give him faster fire rate (to equal the improved attack rate of melee weapon masters), reduce aiming penalties or increase accuracy (to make up for the improved parries of melee weapon masters).

<deposits 2 cents>

[lunar]

My point is that +2 damage is worth more to a missile attack than to a melee attack so maybe that is why the melee attack has other things to make up for this difference.

The fact that +2 damage is worth more to a missile attack seems obvious to me but if you don't believe me then check this out:

2 damage missile attack: innate attack (.5 dice) [3]
2 damage melee attack: innate attack (.5 dice) (Melee 1 -25%) [2]

And no I didn't miss his point. He asked for ideas on the discrepancy and I gave one to him.

[mfarnan]

Correct, the later is more what I am looking at, not what the Archer has to do to spend MORE points on, such as say, power blow 20 (extremley expensive).

Remembering, the Melee can buy up Cinematic feats as well, and there are ALL sorts of cool ones there for him for the same cost of the archer spending points in powerblow.

Such as say, parry missile weapons at an obcene skill, so the archer can't hit him anyway.


Comparring apples with apples, the advantages of Weaponmaster for 20 points between the 2 weapons, appears WAY out of wack.

I think the dmg is already taken care of with +2 to the archer, vs +4 to the melee

I think the Auto Aim, as per gunslinger is an ideal modification that I hadn't considered.

----------------------------------
Mark - Australia

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by LoganSaj

I think you guys may be missing mfarnan's point. And, IMHO ... I agree with him.

No, we're not missing his point. We just happen to think that the 'value' of ranged and melee attacks in a game already justify the difference in what Weapon Master provides to each type of attack.

Originally Posted by LoganSaj

First, he already admitted to knowing the difference between ranged vs. melee. I think he is simply talking about lack of options/ability that come with the same price tag. If a simple bowman and swordsman were matched against one another, the bowman would have the range advantage over the swordsman - without the weapons master. Why pay more points for something you already have?

Ranged attacks are inherently more powerful than melee attacks, so why should they get the same number of benefits as a melee attack for the same number of points.

Originally Posted by LoganSaj

Secondly, if a bowman HAS to buy powerblow at 20 and zen archery, doesn't that just prove mfarnan's point? I mean, the archer is required to buy additional options beyond the single advantage just to make up the slack? Doesn't sound balanced in and of itself.

The bowman doesn't have to buy anything extra. He get's the extra damage bonus, and at 1 shot every 2 or 3 seconds he has a better chance of dropping that melee opponent as it closes in on him. The Weapon Master will allow both to pick up the special skills, and those skills are even more deadly in the hands of a bowman who usually has more time to prep for the use than someone in melee combat has.

Originally Posted by LoganSaj

I like the direction mlangsdorf is going. Give the archer more options to make up for the lack of diversity with the advantage. Give him faster fire rate (to equal the improved attack rate of melee weapon masters), reduce aiming penalties or increase accuracy (to make up for the improved parries of melee weapon masters).

If your gonna allow more "options", increase the point cost. Refer to this quote if you have questions on the 'value' of a ranged vs melee attack.

Originally Posted by lunar

2 damage missile attack: innate attack (.5 dice) [3]
2 damage melee attack: innate attack (.5 dice) (Melee 1 -25%) [2]

Originally Posted by mfarnan

Comparring apples with apples, the advantages of Weaponmaster for 20 points between the 2 weapons, appears WAY out of wack.

But you're not comparing "apples to apples". You're comparing "apples to oranges". Melee and Ranged attacks are not inherently equal in value. So why should an advantage which can modify either one cost exactly the same?

Originally Posted by mfarnan

Such as say, parry missile weapons at an obcene skill, so the archer can't hit him anyway.

Please provide a page number reference for the ability to parry a missile attack. (other than a thrown weapon)

[mfarnan]

A Ranged attack is not 'Inherently more powerfull' than a melee attack, not by any stretch. They are just different, and already balanced within the system. I don't have a basic in front of me, but from memory they are both DX/A skills, with no other requirments.

My problem is the benefit the Melee gets for his 20 points is FAR more than the Archer gets for his 20 pts. It is comparing apples with apples in respect that they are both combat /attack skills. The differences in capability are already taken into account with range modifiers, rate of fire, etc etc, for the non WM. (and, possibly, the reduced effective dmg the archer gets from the skill)

'The archer fighting the melee, comming at him at range etc' is just a tactical situation that (to me) is not relevant to points balancing. I can setup ANY tactical situation which favours one side or the other, for almost any set of skills.

I think the Auto Aim suggestion is the best, with the possible neg to FD and Skill for a rapid shot, although i'd prob make it more than -3 perhaps.


Mark - Australia

[naloth]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Ranged attacks are inherently more powerful than melee attacks, so why should they get the same number of benefits as a melee attack for the same number of points.

Why? Ranged attacks have several limitations that melee attacks don't. I don't consider them better. Bows tend to be very weak in 4th edition.

The bowman doesn't have to buy anything extra. He get's the extra damage bonus, and at 1 shot every 2 or 3 seconds he has a better chance of dropping that melee opponent as it closes in on him. The Weapon Master

Does he? Being does being a bow master help you more against 3 opponents at 20 yards than being a sword master?

Let's see.

The average move is 5 while the average dodge is 8 - a flat 25.9% chance to dodge since you cannot make a deceptive strike. Ranged attacks suffer SM modifiers (feature, can be pro or con) and ranged penalties (definite con). You're also at a -2 to -6 to hit per shot. Assuming you can fire every other second (fast draw costs extra though) you should get 2 shots off then your mastery is pretty useless. Presuming you had a cocked bow you might be able to get 3 shots off. Longer ranges might help you get more shots but you're also at stiffer penalties (not much of a gain).

Let's take the swordmaster. He can trade off skill to reduce his opponent's defenses. He doesn't suffer as many penalties. He can rapid strike. Presumably he'll have a pretty good parry that he can use multiple times. I would give him the odds against those 3 opponents.

But you're not comparing "apples to apples". You're comparing "apples to oranges". Melee and Ranged attacks are not inherently equal in value. So why should an advantage which can modify either one cost exactly the same?

Well, it's the same ability with the same cost... We are comparing general utility. Ranged has perks as does melee. Personally I would recommend choosing a weapon that can also be thrown so you get the best of both worlds (speal masters aka Aiel from WoT).