# I'm annoyed at archers.



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 26, 2002)

Okay, I've seen them from both sides of the DM/player fence, in multiple games. I've used concealment, spells, sundering, grappling, disarm, cover and every other archer-counter in the book.

I still think they are too powerful. And this is coming from a Munchkin (me). 

As an example: in the game I'm in right now, we're L7. We've got two melee types and two archer types. They are as follows:


* Melee: *
human L7 fighter TWF bastard sword twink
lizardfolk L5 barbarian 27 AC, long sword/shield twink

* Archer: *
elven L4 fighter L3 rogue archer twink
elven L7 cleric of elf domain archer twink


The archers do the most damage, hands down. Sure, their AC is bunk, but who cares? Most baddies die before they're in melee combat. Even then, they've got Mithril chain shirts and a 20+ dexterity. I'm dreading what will happen as soon as the F/R archer goes OOBI, PA, AA, or whatever other twinked out archer madness there is.

With a high dex, stacking GMW arrows, a magic bow, a high str, bracers of archery and PBS, RS, PS, WF, and WS, these archer-freaks dominate the game. They take a full attack every round, while it takes the melee guys some time to get in position.
.
.
.
Anyway, please don't explain counters to archers to me. I know that a bow has 5 hardness and 2 hps. I know that they don't threaten. I know that Warp Wood is a godsend.


I'm just annoyed that archery in DnD is not a support role. I dislike that melee types are constantly bombarded with Improved Grab and Reach and threatening and disarms and what have you while being constantly outshined in damage output by the bow dudes. That is kinda cheesy. 

I'd like it if the amount of damage you deal was proportional to the amount of damage you received. I'd like it if the guys on the front lines with a high Strength could do comparable damage to the twinky goodness of using a bow, but that is a fat chance.


Maybe I should join the crowd and use a bow. My Lizardfolk barbarian would then womp those pansy elves. 
.
.
.
.
P.S And what ********** thought up Ranged Power Attack? The Peerless Archer can ******* my left **********!    




*grin*


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 26, 2002)

Well, there isa reason that swords aren't the modern-day weapon of choice: ranged combat is much safer for the participant.

However, if you're truly irked about it, simply house rule that Magic Bows and arrows don't stack. Maybe have bows add tohit and arrows to damage (and overcoming DR).


----------



## Grog (Nov 26, 2002)

Actually, I think the most unbalancing thing about archers is the fact that you can GMW 50 arrows at a time. The next time I run a campaign, I'll probably change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows. That way, the only way an archer can get the attack and damage bonuses from magic bows and arrows to stack is to use magic arrows - which are a limited resource the DM can control.


----------



## mkletch (Nov 26, 2002)

I did the archer thing, and there is nothing more frightening than improved grab plus reach.  If you friends get grabbed, you might hit them with your shots.  If you get it, well, suffice it to say that it gets really ugly.

The other option is to set adventures in catacombs or other places where a standard move or partial charge will set the melee fighters up pretty well.

As for archers in general, spellcasters are 5x worse.  WHat an archer can do in ten rounds, a wizard or cleric can do in one or two.

-Fletch!


----------



## mkletch (Nov 26, 2002)

Grog said:
			
		

> *Actually, I think the most unbalancing thing about archers is the fact that you can GMW 50 arrows at a time. The next time I run a campaign, I'll probably change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows. That way, the only way an archer can get the attack and damage bonuses from magic bows and arrows to stack is to use magic arrows - which are a limited resource the DM can control. *




Then archers are completely useless.  Either you need AA, or you need GMW.  If there are no magic arrows, the DR is 'invulnerability to archers'.

I would not allow GMW to pass a +10 total modifier on the arrows, though some do.  Look at it this way.  If your players don't go through 50 arrows in 8 hours, then you are not pressing them hard enough.  "Oh, I just shot my last arrow.  Let's rest."  Then the hordes of hell fall upon them 4 hours into resting.  GMW is a crutch, and a weak one at that.

Another option is to allow the arrow enhancement to only affect damage, and the bow enhancement to only affect attack, if you're freaked by the stacking bow and ammunition.

-Fletch!


----------



## bret (Nov 26, 2002)

Amusing.

A friend of mine was recently complaining about how his group suffered because they lacked a tank in the group. All the fighter types were archers, with no one to protect them. They frequently got torn to pieces.

I haven't seen an archer type in their full gory, so I'm not sure just how bad it can get. I do know that a melee fighter can output a lot of damage in a full attack, but it is relatively easy to prevent them from getting that full attack.

I have seen archer types get into a melee situation. When I've seen this, it usually involved the archer getting badly chewed up.


----------



## gfunk (Nov 26, 2002)

I know you said you didn't want counters, but I couldn't resist offering one.  Wind wall.

Stops all bolts and arrows, even +5 arrows of human slaying fired from a +5 Mighty (Str 18) Composite Long Bow of Unerring Accuracy.

If the PCs in your campaign face powerful foes or, are themsleves powerful, future enemies would prepare accordingly.


----------



## Deadguy (Nov 26, 2002)

I've often felt that they fluffed the handling of magical missile weapons. I really feel they should've gone the path mentioned by James McMurray above: the launcher is ensorcelled only for attack enhancements, and the missiles themselves for damage. Of course, to be fair, since they get only half the nromal bonus (either attack or damage, not attack _and_ damage), they should cost only half the normal price to create. They sort've acknowledged the problem, in that there is the rule about overcoming DR, but I suspect that it was really for legacy reasons that they didn't rationalise the design fully.

It always seems strange that when dealing with really high AC targets the best approach isn't to get up close and pound your foe, but rather to stand off and snipe with a GMW +5 bow and GMW +5 arrows.


----------



## hong (Nov 26, 2002)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> I haven't seen an archer type in their full gory, so I'm not sure just how bad it can get. *




Heh. Just two days ago I posted about how my 14th level archer was dealing 100+ points per round, for three rounds, to a black dragon. Admittedly this was a custom PrC (which I've since toned down), but the usual ones are no doubt just as bad.



> *
> I have seen archer types get into a melee situation. When I've seen this, it usually involved the archer getting badly chewed up. *




This is the problem, though. While having someone to stop the monsters getting to the archer is essential for the archer's survival, it's too often a thankless task. The melee guys get torn to pieces, while the archer gets the kill. It's the Poor Bloody Infantry thing all over again.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 26, 2002)

What I want to know is what a "TWF Bastard Sword Twink" is. Unless he's got a Sunblade for his off hand, TWF with two bastard swords is silly. The character could either spend the EWP on Double Sword and power attack (doing more damage and being harder to disarm/sunder) or use twin shortswords (power attacking for 2, he gets the same average damage) and have a free feat. If the shortsword guy gets a Sunblade, he can use it too. . . .

If he's trying to wield two bastard swords, it's no wonder the archers are outdamaging him.

As for the lizardman barbarian, longsword/shield is the AC maximizing combo not the damage maximizing one (unless he's TWF and using Shield Expert).

If a melee character wants to outdamage a maxed out archer, s/he should focus on maximizing damage--something like Multidexterity/multiattack with bastard sword/spiked shield/armor spikes or Ambidex/TWF with Greatsword and armor spikes. As much as Arcane Archer and OoBI can get nasty, the melee type has similar options--Foe Hunter, Tribal Protector, Frenzied Beserker, Devoted Defender, etc. If you want to blow them out of the water in terms of damage dealing, a combination of those is the route to go.

And you're still able to attack when the enemy drops an Obscuring Mist or darkness spell. . . . .


----------



## Corwin the Confused (Nov 26, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Okay, I've seen them from both sides of the DM/player fence, in multiple games. I've used concealment, spells, sundering, grappling, disarm, cover and every other archer-counter in the book.
> 
> I still think they are too powerful. And this is coming from a Munchkin (me).
> 
> ...




There are a couple of ways to deal with your situation:

1. Deal with it. D&D is a team sport.  Usually everyone fills a role or roles. There are the point men that get in the front line, suck up the damage from the BBEGs and hopefully give as good as they get. There are your artillary men that stay in the back and deal damagte from a distance. And there are men that are a little of both.

2. Next time there is an encounter do not charge the BBEGs. Hunker down and let them come to you. And attack one flank of the BBEGs and let the Archer's take on the other flank. Even with their miythral shirts and high dex the BBEGs might kill them and any other artillary men i.e. Arcane spell casters and Non-combat focused clerics, etc. Then they will learn to appreciate the safety of fighting behind the close range fighter types.

FYI, historically archers on the losing side of some battles had their fingers cut off. And there is a saying that says, "The honor went out of war when you no longer had to look in the face of a man as you killed him."


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2002)

I'm curious on how the archers are able to kill things before they get a chancve to advance.  Unless the encounters are in a very large place, it should take a round to advance up to the Archers, many times being able to do this with a charge.  All one needs to do is win initiative and charge the archer.  Then the Archer will be in a world of hurt.


----------



## bret (Nov 26, 2002)

I can easily see how archers could kill someone before they got to them. Even if we ignore Entangle and their ilk, it isn't uncommon for an encounter in our group to happen at greater than 100 yards. At that point, only your long range spells and longbow archers are going to do much of anything and melee is a _long_ ways away. Especially if the archers are on the other side of a chasm.

Any combat that starts more than 60' away is generally too far for a partial charge (which is all you can do in a surprise round) by anyone other than a Monk. We have tanks with base movements of 15' and 20', which really cuts down how far you can charge.

We are high enough level where this isn't a terrible problem. Still, it can add a significant challenge when fighting something like giants.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2002)

But even still, that means the achers are killing the opponents in one or two rounds.  I think if that is happening, that might be the problem.


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2002)

Don't advance.

That's my suggestion.

Have your lizardman barbarian stand at the front of the party and wait.  

Let the enemy die slowly to missiles and magic.

And when the enemy finally arrives, crush him with a full attack.

Tom


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 26, 2002)

*



			James McMurray---
Well, there isa reason that swords aren't the modern-day weapon of choice: ranged combat is much safer for the participant.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yeah, I know. I guess I'm a fan of heroic fantasy. I can't see Conan or Arthur being overshadowed by some random archer. I like the idea of dueling melees. (No wonder I don't like Real-World time period RPGs.)
.
.
.
*



			Grog--
Actually, I think the most unbalancing thing about archers is the fact that you can GMW 50 arrows at a time.
		
Click to expand...


*
I was thinking of a house rule where GMW only effected one arrow. Also, instead of the DMG prices for magic arrows being for stacks of 50, I'd make them for stacks of 500.

(We already have a house-rule that the total market price modifier for special abilities on magic weapons cannot exceed the weapon's enhancement bonus. In other words: No GMWed Keen Vorpal Rapiers +1. This cut down on GMW twinkage dramatically, since before this rule, players never bought enhancement bonuses on weapons above +1 due to GMW.)
.
.
.
*



			mkletch----
As for archers in general, spellcasters are 5x worse. WHat an archer can do in ten rounds, a wizard or cleric can do in one or two.
		
Click to expand...


*
Not from experience. I don't want to get into a full-blown debate on this point, but SR, energy resistances and just plain old good saving throws are quite common on most monsters. Besides, a cleric * with * a bow is ten times better than a cleric * without * a bow. 

But as always, it depends on the circumstances of the encounter.
.
.
.
*



			bret---
They frequently got torn to pieces.
		
Click to expand...


*
AC (unless absurdly twinked) is worthless at mid to high levels. I don't think replacing one of the archers with a tank would help. It seems like the DM was overcompensating for the PCs ability to easily defeat encounters of appropriate EL.


*



			bret---
I haven't seen an archer type in their full gory, so I'm not sure just how bad it can get. I do know that a melee fighter can output a lot of damage in a full attack,
		
Click to expand...


*
Eh...really, the problem is getting that full attack. The melee character has to jump through zillions of hoops to get that full attack, whereas the archer is full-attacking from the get go, plus they automatically get an extra attack from L1.

When we were L2, and the archers were Rapid Shotting everything in sight, four CR 1/2 orcs was a joke.

It totally depends on encounter distance, but from experience (and glancing at the DMG pg. 60), starting encounter distance is pretty far away. Light forest is 105 ft., grassland is 420 ft. and dungeons are LOS (which is generally really far for ambient light, not so far in total darkness with torches.)

Anyway, in order for the melee guys to whip out their damage, they need to be in total darkness with a horrible LOS and start off right next to the monsters. That kinda blows. 


*



			bret---
I have seen archer types get into a melee situation. When I've seen this, it usually involved the archer getting badly chewed up.
		
Click to expand...


*
Melee characters get chewed up in melee, too. My lizardfolk with an AC of 27 gets hit regularly by CR 7 creatures. The TWF is even worse off. And that's not even including Improved Grab creatures. 
.
.
.


			
				gfunk said:
			
		

> *I know you said you didn't want counters, but I couldn't resist offering one.  Wind wall.
> *




Used it. Doesn't work. Casters don't get LOS through magical walls. Same with Wall of Force. 

IMHO, Obscuring Mist is a better alternative (and lower level). Or even Blindness, which doesn't effect your minions/superiors. Slow is a good one, too.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 26, 2002)

No fighter should be a one-trick pony.  Every warrior-type ought to be able to fire some kind of missile weapon and then (if need be) switch to melee when the enemy gets close.  The archer specialists are still gonna be better that way, but at least you're contributing.

Also, even though you can see things when they're far away, do you always know whether they're gonna be hostile?  Seems to me that that could be a contributing issue.  I mean, doesn't anyone ever ambush your group?  Do you ever have those encounters where you talk first and then the blades come out?


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 26, 2002)

*



			Elder-basilisk--

If you want to blow them out of the water in terms of damage dealing, a combination of those is the route to go.
		
Click to expand...


*
Regardless of the classes taken by the characters, the archer out-damages the melee guy because of the very nature of the bow being a ranged attack and all of the stackable features of DnD archery. The melee guy often cannot employ the full attack action due to the distance between him and his enemies.


BTW, on a separate issue: I do not believe that characters must take PrCs to remain effective. I would like to stay as a single-classed lizardman barbarian. Why should I alter my character concept to stay effective because some WotC guys decided to make the PA or OOBI? Both of these classes are more powerful than any single classed character. (Except for the cleric, of course.)
.
.
.
*



			Corwin the Confused---
1. Deal with it.
		
Click to expand...


*
Okay then. The next player who decides to play an archer, I'll kick in the groin. That is my way of dealing with it. 


*



			Corwin the Confused---
2. Next time there is an encounter do not charge the BBEGs. Hunker down and let them come to you.
		
Click to expand...


*
The bad guys would already be dead.
.
.
.
*



			Crothian---
All one needs to do is win initiative and charge the archer. Then the Archer will be in a world of hurt.
		
Click to expand...


*
This is assuming that Archers have horrible ACs and horrible hps. I disagree. Most archers, IMX, have a bit less AC and hps than tanks. They have the same AC and a bit less hps than TWFs. For this trade-off, they gain extra full round attacks for the first round or two of combat. They also don't have to maneuver to hit spellcasters or enemy archers.
.
.
.
*



			Endur---

Don't advance.

That's my suggestion.

Have your lizardman barbarian stand at the front of the party and wait. 

Let the enemy die slowly to missiles and magic.

And when the enemy finally arrives, crush him with a full attack.
		
Click to expand...


*
Problem: Enemy never actually arrives.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 26, 2002)

> Used it. Doesn't work. Casters don't get LOS through magical walls. Same with Wall of Force.




Wind Wall does not block Vision, nor is it a solid barrier. Therefore it does not block Line of Sight or Line of Effect.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2002)

So, what sorts of encounters are your archers totally making mince meat of?  Maybe a few examples can help some of understand where the problem is.  

From what I've seen, playing an archer, when ever a creature gets in melee with me I'm in trouble.  My AC is good, but the first attack ussually hasa better thjen 50% chance of hitting, and then the second has better then 25%.  I think it was at seventh level where we ran into Morrow with some class levels I got knocked to -8hp pretty darn fast.  I held out as an archer as long as I could, but had to go melee wghen they went melee and even with full expertise going my AC was not good enough.  So, I know archers can be darn effective, but not to the point it's a problem.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 26, 2002)

the Jester said:
			
		

> *No fighter should be a one-trick pony.  Every warrior-type ought to be able to fire some kind of missile weapon and then (if need be) switch to melee when the enemy gets close.  The archer specialists are still gonna be better that way, but at least you're contributing. *




So you want me to "join 'em" as per the saying: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

*



			Jester---
Also, even though you can see things when they're far away, do you always know whether they're gonna be hostile?  Seems to me that that could be a contributing issue.  I mean, doesn't anyone ever ambush your group?  Do you ever have those encounters where you talk first and then the blades come out?
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, we are ambushed. Yes, we have encounters where we talk first, then attack. But really, those are not the meat and potatoes encounters of DnD. Most of the time: you see beholders, you attack. You see fire giants, you attack. You see trolls, you attack.

Even if it's not obvious, like human bandits or a duergar patrol, you often start out farther than 5 feet away. That bit of distance can make all the difference.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 26, 2002)

Also, melee guys have a lot more options at their disposal, including trips, disarms, bullrushes, etc. All of that is what I always loved about my fighter, not just hacking away at it.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wind Wall does not block Vision, nor is it a solid barrier. Therefore it does not block Line of Sight or Line of Effect. *




My bad. Just read the FAQ and pg. 150 of the PHB. That's nice to know for the next time I DM.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 26, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So you want me to "join 'em" as per the saying: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
> *




Not exactly- but I think it's good to have options.  For instance, if you fight something that is horrendously mobile you may never get into melee.  There's nothing wrong with having options; soften the enemy up first and then mince them when you're close enough.  I doubt whether you'd ever find an archer who doesn't have a melee weapon in reserve; think of it as the converse- you have a missile weapon in reserve.

I agree that archers are outragous in 3e; the first group I ran in 3e had an archer-type human fighter who cleaned up a lot of the fights early on.  I definitely sympathize.  But if they don't actually have the magic arrows, it only takes one dispel magic to nerf those 50 GMW arrows and one high-DR creature to make them sweat.  (Demons, devils, other spell-like ability toting things...)

The thing is, it isn't just archers who are outrageous: it's everyone.  Who gets to shine really varies from group to group, and as a dm one thing I try hard to do is to make sure that everyone gets their chance- even the classes and races not in the party.  "Boy, I wish we had a druid right about now!"  I try to do the same thing with skills and feats too- "Crap, here's where I really wish I'd taken Blindfighting" and "Who has a decent diplomacy score??"

If you ever need to take someone alive, the melee types are much better at it (heck, that's where monks shine).  If you need to take out a wand or a magic weapon that is tearing the group up you generally need a melee type.  It's all situational.

And, of course, situations depend on the dm.

I had to do a lot of adjusting when 3e came out.  Things are different and require a different type of dm juggling act to make everyone shine.  So while I sympathize with your position, I still think you can make an equal argument that the melee types are overpowered, or spellcasters, or clerics, or whoever- it just depends on the game and the types of encounters you have come up.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 26, 2002)

I've honestly not had a problem with archers in my group -- but nobody's played a total archer twink, either.

One simple solution to the GMW problem would be to rule that magic arrows don't stack with magic bows:  only the higher bonus is used.

The advantage to using a magic bow, of course, is that its magic applies to infinite ammunition.

The advantage to using magic arrows, of course, is that they overcome damage resistance.

This might create a good balance for archers.

Also, are y'all using cover rules correctly?  If the archers are firing from behind the tanks, or if the tanks are engaged in melee combat with the enemy, the enemy should receive cover from the tanks -- this is in addition to any penalties the archers receive for firing into combat.  And it may make an important difference.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 26, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> Regardless of the classes taken by the characters, the archer out-damages the melee guy because of the very nature of the bow being a ranged attack and all of the stackable features of DnD archery. The melee guy often cannot employ the full attack action due to the distance between him and his enemies.
> *



*

Get yourself some boots of speed or other haste effect. Haste does marvels for your ability to position yourself (and for the melee vs. archer damage debate--meleers usually do more damage on a single attack which is all either can get out of a haste spell).

Use the partial action to partial charge (power attacking because you'll still hit and the penalty to attack can be reset on your next action). On your full round action, don't power attack. Make a full attack instead.

You should also make use of the considerable synergy between barbarian rage and bull's strength/etc. If you get your strength enhanced by the cleric and rage, you will probably be hitting strength scores of 26 to 30 (I'm assuming you've good stats since the archers both have dex 20+). +8 to +10 damage (and that's one-handed) goes a long way towards evening out the stacking damage bonus benefit that bows get.





			BTW, on a separate issue: I do not believe that characters must take PrCs to remain effective. I would like to stay as a single-classed lizardman barbarian. Why should I alter my character concept to stay effective because some WotC guys decided to make the PA or OOBI? Both of these classes are more powerful than any single classed character. (Except for the cleric, of course.)
		
Click to expand...



Prestige classes are more specialized than other classes. They gain abilities in their specialty and sacrifice abilities that aren't in their specialty. A ftr 18/Rog 2 is competetive with Ftr 6/Rog4/OoBI 10 but not at archery. If you want to dish out damage as quickly as the archers you need to be prepared to specialize in dishing out damage. Right now, your character seems to be specialized in avoiding taking damage (sword and shield w/ lizardman natural armor). A prestige class would give you the opportunity to specialize more radically than you've done to this point. If you don't want to specialize, you need to be prepared to deal with being a generalist though.





			The bad guys would already be dead.
		
Click to expand...



If this really is the case then the problem is not that the archers are so awesome but that your DM is tossing weak encounters at the party and otherwise playing to the archer characters' strengths. If your DM tosses encounters in the pitch black mines of a hobgoblin cave (they have darkvision, why would they light it) or inclement weather (fog ruins an archer's day), skeletons (love the 1/2 damage for piercing weapons), wizards with Protection from Arrows, or just tosses a horde of relatively weak foes (say high hp bugbear War 2s) at the party things will be different. In the last case, even with the damage the archers deal out, they should still only be able to drop one or two bad guys a round. If the melee types have cleave and great cleave, they should be able to mow through them just as quickly.





			This is assuming that Archers have horrible ACs and horrible hps. I disagree. Most archers, IMX, have a bit less AC and hps than tanks. They have the same AC and a bit less hps than TWFs. For this trade-off, they gain extra full round attacks for the first round or two of combat. They also don't have to maneuver to hit spellcasters or enemy archers.
		
Click to expand...



Your experience is quite different from most peoples' then. Standard AC for a melee cleric 7: 27 (+2 fullplate, +2 lg shield, +3 deflection from Magic Vestment and Shield of Faith).
Standard AC for an archer cleric 7: 19 (+1 chain shirt, 18 dex--modified; the magic vestment and shield of faith go on the melee characters (at least that's how I played my RttToEE archer cleric))

The standard archer cleric 7 is an elf who rarely has more than 45 hp. (12 con, 5hp/level after 1st).
The standard melee cleric 7 is a human or dwarf and typically has at least 59 hp--66 in the case of the dwarf (14 or 16 con+Endurance spell, 5hp/level).

Those differences aren't insignificant.

And I've never played in a campaign where the bad guys didn't manage to be in melee during the first round of combat 90% of the time. (Giving fighters full attack actions and menacing the archers who provoke AoOs and are generally vulnerable). If the bad guys don't usually close until midway through round 2 or 3 of combat in your campaign, I can see what your problem is. . . .*


----------



## Grog (Nov 26, 2002)

mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then archers are completely useless.  Either you need AA, or you need GMW.  If there are no magic arrows, the DR is 'invulnerability to archers'.*




Nonsense. First, not even close to all monsters have DR. And when they do run into those that do, they can use their magic arrows. The only thing changing GMW does is make it so they don't have an unlimited supply anymore.


----------



## Pax (Nov 26, 2002)

bret said:
			
		

> *I can easily see how archers could kill someone before they got to them. Even if we ignore Entangle and their ilk, it isn't uncommon for an encounter in our group to happen at greater than 100 yards. At that point, only your long range spells and longbow archers are going to do much of anything and melee is a long ways away. Especially if the archers are on the other side of a chasm.*




Does the campaign world have no forests?  Trust me, a hundred yards of forest makes for Full Cover ... and then some.  Which means,of course, 20 or 30 yards is a more-likely initial encounter range.



> *Any combat that starts more than 60' away is generally too far for a partial charge (which is all you can do in a surprise round) by anyone other than a Monk. We have tanks with base movements of 15' and 20', which really cuts down how far you can charge.
> 
> We are high enough level where this isn't a terrible problem. Still, it can add a significant challenge when fighting something like giants. *




Your tanks need mounts.  That vastly improves their available charge range.  Perhaps also some javelins or other strength-helped missile weapons for the first round or two.

As wlel, the DM should be giving the enemy more of a chance to seek cover or concealment, foiling the archer's long-range shots.  And at 100 yards, the archers should be taking penalties (even a Heavy Crossbow, at 300 feet, is in it's third range bracket ... suffering two penalty levels to attack).


----------



## LordAO (Nov 26, 2002)

Archers rule? Well duh! There is a reason the English Longbowmen dominated warfare for hundreds of years until the introduction of gunpowder, and were it not for machine guns and airplanes, they would probably still be damned effective today. 

Besides, compared to Sorcerers with their limitless spells per day, Rogues with that god forsaken sneak attack, and worst of all Clerics (Harm, Miracle, etc.) I find it hard to understand why you think archers are so munchkin.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Nov 26, 2002)

I am also of the opinion that enhancement bonuses of the bow and the arrows should not stack. The way it is an archer will often have a massive boost to attack to go with his increased number of attacks (rapid shot as well as easier ways to get full attacks), which is not exactly balanced in my opinion.


----------



## Darklone (Nov 26, 2002)

*Why D&D played like this sucks.*

Ok. Rant starting here. (Hi buddha )

As I understood, you (as well as many others) play your games rather minmaxxed due to the old D&D philosophy of teaming with other specialists to achieve your goals. Here's your problem. Every character specializes in one area/weapon/whatever and sucks everywhere else ("Hey, get the rogue, I can't open this door...", -"Dude, it's not locked!"). Rogue (trapspringer), fighter (tank, meleemachine), cleric (insert copper coin for cure all), wizard/sorcerer (damage, damage, damage).

Somewhere above someone mentioned why your melee idiots can't shoot with bows too. Somewhere in another thread an archer player whined why his archer sucked in melee (as usual you got both sides complaining, the archers as well as the others about the archers). When someone proposed to him to switch to a melee weapon, he whined that it would decrease his "damage output potential". 

You seem to play D&D like a computergame with everyone playing his button X and button Y ability and nothing else. You learned from D&D that splitting the team means death for the single character, no matter how logical it would be otherwise. 

Dungeoncrawling is fun sometimes. But in my case a group of heavily armed adventurers entering a dungeon crowded with monsters would simply cause all the monsters to give them chase. At once. No picking them off room by room. No walking through while living from the loot. 

Rant off.

What I wanted to say to those who heroically suffered through the rant above :
You play your game like this. If you have problems with that, change the way you play your game. It's easy.

Yet another point: Archers with high strength? Try another point buy system or rolling for character creation. A cleric with high strength and high dex plus high wisdom? Even my players don't roll that good.


----------



## bret (Nov 26, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> *
> Does the campaign world have no forests?  Trust me, a hundred yards of forest makes for Full Cover ... and then some.  Which means,of course, 20 or 30 yards is a more-likely initial encounter range.
> 
> 
> ...




OK, I'm only in one campaign of high enough level where it would matter. The other campaigns are still below 6th level.

First of all, I had already stated that I haven't seen the problem. I can believe it exists, but I haven't seen it.

Second of all, all our mounts got eatten by a dragon. Inconvenient, especially since in that campaign we don't have time to go back to town and get new mounts. When we need mounts, it means a lot of summoning and using Rary's Mneumonic Enhancer to get enough first level spells.

Lastly, in that campaign our main opponents are giants. We are the ones taking cover and avoiding ranged combat since boulder trumps arrow in every case I've seen. We work hard to get inside their archery range as much as possible.

We just don't see the opponents going down in one or two rounds of archery. Part of this is we are fighting the biggest hit point sinks in the game. Anther part of this is probably because the characters were built before the first splatbook came out and it takes a while to adapt an existing character to a PrC without rebuilding it.

Our encounter distances have started at anywhere from 20 feet to ¼ mile. We have done all sorts of things to try and get it down to as small a number as possible before combat starts. The only time we don't do this is when we split the group, and then all the slow tanks are flying in order to move faster.


My other main campaign is based on sea travel. I'm expecting all of the characters will have a significant amount of archery, with the possible exception of my wizard. In that campaign, the encounter distances are likely to be much longer than in a normal game, to the extent where I expect to be getting the Enlarge Spell feat for use with a Fireball. Too bad really, since I generally prefer Lightning Bolt over Fireball.


----------



## Happy Monkey (Nov 26, 2002)

When I played warhammer 40k   the biggest counter to missile fire was terrain. Same is true for d&d, cover and concealment are available in most natural environments and in many built areas too.

Moving rapidly or being prone helps too.

GMW and arrows (!!$!!) do need to be addressed but not by me.


----------



## mkletch (Nov 26, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Also, are y'all using cover rules correctly?  If the archers are firing from behind the tanks, or if the tanks are engaged in melee combat with the enemy, the enemy should receive cover from the tanks -- this is in addition to any penalties the archers receive for firing into combat.  And it may make an important difference. *




And back to a recent poll, this is the value of the Sharp-Shooting feat from S&F.

-Fletch!


----------



## mkletch (Nov 26, 2002)

*Re: Why D&D played like this sucks.*



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *Dungeoncrawling is fun sometimes. But in my case a group of heavily armed adventurers entering a dungeon crowded with monsters would simply cause all the monsters to give them chase. At once. No picking them off room by room. No walking through while living from the loot. *




I do this as a DM, but not because of archers.  I do it because it makes sense...

-Fletch!


----------



## Mulkhoran (Nov 26, 2002)

Grog said:
			
		

> *Nonsense. First, not even close to all monsters have DR. And when they do run into those that do, they can use their magic arrows. The only thing changing GMW does is make it so they don't have an unlimited supply anymore. *




Erm, DR is an essential part of a monster's challenge as they go up in CR.  While there may need to be a fix for GMW *abuse*, it is critical for an archer character to have access to the magical weaponry appropriate for his level.  Otherwise, he's doing *nothing*.

I don't really understand all the problems with archers. I'm playing one now, and I've seen them played before. I don't deny that they *can* be extremely powerful.  But the limitations on them are more than just one or two arbitrary "counters".  Cover and concealment count for a LOT more than is being addressed here on this thread.  These aren't contrived excuses to counter the archer, they're what every semi-intelligent creature in the world seeks out when attacked by missile fire.  Especially SUPERIOR missile fire.

It depends a lot on initial encounter distance, and the breakout of how often you encounter creatures at x distance, y distance, etc.   An archer's effectiveness can be extremely enhanced by how the DM presents encounters.

Also, melee fighters can generally reach better single-shot damage quicker. I realize that Rapid Shot and other things quickly compare to this, but these are still multiple attacks, and that's extremely material to this conversation.  Sometimes one attack is all you get, and after a while, 1d8+4 is a little depressing.

I feel the pain of the "wtf???" people about archers. I've spent plenty of time "fighting in the shade" of our female elven Ftr/AA/OOBI/whoknowswhat artillery piece as she sometimes drills 5 arrows a round into disintegrating enemies.  But it's all about roles and contributions. One archer does not a party make.

Now an *archmage*, on the other hand.......


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 26, 2002)

I am of two minds with this issue.  I've found the hard way that more than one specialty archer can serious overpower a group, leaving the rest of the group feeling bored as they slaughter virtually everything in their path before the rest of the group has much of a chance.  I knew there was a problem when one Level 10 archer nearly killed a retriever in one round (and had it been subject to criticals, he would have).

Personally, I think removing Mighty bows may be the solution, as I think these allow too much of a boost to damage.  More recently, I've had seen an archer do 164 points of damage in one round (with haste, many shot and criticals, mind you)...but I didn't see that as unbalanced for a level 17 AA with some lucky rolls and buffs who landed 7 shots.  That same archer was competely useless against some animated crossbows, since he couldn't get past their hardness.  

Concealment and terrain help, but honestly they're not that big of a deal at higher levels.  When a 34 is a low result for an archer, -10 to the roll is usually not as important.  Often, completely obscurring their vision is the best solution, or putting a defensive wind or fire wall.


----------



## Bastoche (Nov 26, 2002)

I want to point out three points.

point number one: someone asked about "TWF bastard" what is that ? If you meant THF ok. But if that guy is truly fighting with two weapons, there is a HUGE problem there.  On the same point, the barbarian aimed for AC instead of damage. Archers are always tweaked toward damage and nothing else. So you compare rotten apples to fresh oranges here. No wonder everybody prefer the oranges.

point number two: what the ability scores ? I got the impression that your character's ability scores may be too high. Could it be the case ? If you go over 36-38 point buy, the balance blows and I speak from experience here.

point number three: In 3E, everyone should be specialists IMO. And I do not mean "taking PrC". I mean finding your role in the adventuring group. In your group, each character has the same goal: blow the enemy's face. I think that's a big problem because in that case you're all competing on the same ground. Tha barbarian could be the trekker with wilderness lore and intuit direction for example. The fighter should be the greatsword weilding tank warrior with high strenght and con and low dex. The rogue/fighter archer should be more rogue than fighter and be the scout for example with hide and move silently and the cleric should be the healer (therefore NOT an archer !). We are starting a new campaign this week (hopefully  )  and this time we lowered the hability scores and created the characters together and everyone has his own role. There's the fighter/sorceror with high wisdom (!) who's role will be to fight in darkness with spells to beef up the fighter's part but with a tendency to take more sorceror levels than fighter's. There will be the rogue (me) who's role is to be the spy/scout. There is the bard who's role is to pick all the skills nobody wanted to take: appraise, diplomacy, use magic device, etc. And finally there will probably be a tank warrior. Everyone has his own role both on the battlefield and in the dungeon. Each with his own area of expertise. We're starting at level 2 with ECL +3 races.


----------



## Darklone (Nov 26, 2002)

I still think that specialists in my games would get bored to hell or die fast. Probably both.


----------



## Bastoche (Nov 26, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *I still think that specialists in my games would get bored to hell or die fast. Probably both.  *




I must admit that I don't understand why it would be preferable to make generalist. And I'm speaking general generalist. I don't see the point in having four characters who all sucks in every field. And in that point I consider all aspects of the game: skills, spells, and combat ability.

It's pointless for a non-warrior type (I'd even daresay a non-fighter) to try to excel on the battlefield. It's pointless for a multiclass wizard to try to excel on the spell part. It's pointless for a fighter to try to excel at sneakning around.

I'm not sure I understand what you consider a specialist and a non-specialist... What team would be the best. The one with four specialist fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric or the one with four generalist fighter-rogue-wizard-cleric ? But this is getting off topic.

My point is that the four characters all try to be specialist in the same field. That is much more a problem than simply having four specialist in four area...


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2002)

comments in line.
_Originally posted by ConcreteBuddha _
>BTW, on a separate issue: I do not believe that characters must >take PrCs to remain effective. I would like to stay as a single->classed lizardman barbarian. Why should I alter my character >concept to stay effective because some WotC guys decided to >make the PA or OOBI? Both of these classes are more powerful >than any single classed character. (Except for the cleric, of >course.)

I agree.  Barbarian is a fine class for a Lizardman.  What weapon do you use?  Or do you do claw-claw-bite?

With regards to waiting for the enemy...

>Problem: Enemy never actually arrives.

If the enemy never arrives, that is not a problem.  After one or two encounters like that, the GM will modify the ELs and the enemy will start arriving for melee.  We regularly fight encounters that are 2 to 5 ELs above our level.

Tom


----------



## Bastoche (Nov 26, 2002)

Endur said:
			
		

> *
> I agree.  Barbarian is a fine class for a Lizardman.  What weapon do you use?  Or do you do claw-claw-bite?
> *




( If you read carefully his first post, you'll find out... )


----------



## Rackhir (Nov 26, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I am of two minds with this issue.  I've found the hard way that more than one specialty archer can serious overpower a group, leaving the rest of the group feeling bored as they slaughter virtually everything in their path before the rest of the group has much of a chance.  I knew there was a problem when one Level 10 archer nearly killed a retriever in one round (and had it been subject to criticals, he would have).
> *




Actually, Rackhir was 12th or 13th at the point where he took on the retriever and with not too much bad luck it would have killed him. So it didn't do to badly considering it's a CR 10 Monster and Rackhir was a very formidable archer.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 26, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha,

You may or may not be a "Munchkin", but glancing at your melee types it is obvious they could use some advice from "Real Men".

Real Men like two-handed weapons and laugh at those use two weapons (unless you are going the spiked shield route).

Real Men don't care for races with ECL unless they are playing characters over 10th level equivalent.  
Real Men like humans and dwarves and half-orcs, and know how to stack up either the offense or defense so high it makes the DM cringe.

Real Men like Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave.  Those are key advantages of a melee grunt over a ranged specialist.  

(If your DM is foolish enough to allow "Ranged Power Attack", all is not lost.  But your will need to know how to twink out on PrCs...)

_The Achille's Heal of archers is line of sight._  A simple Obscuring Mist in restricted terrain can shut them down.  You are now 7th level, and you should not be surprised if even the orcs you meet have access to this type of spell.  Darkness and its variants will work, too.


----------



## JoelF (Nov 26, 2002)

Another key weakness of the archers that stay put compared to the melee fighters who close is area of effect spells.  The melee fighters are right next to the enemies front lines, and sometimes past it.  They aren't very easy to target with fireballs, etc without hitting allies of the enemy spellcaster.  The archers are all alone, with no enemies near them and make great targets for area of effect spells (and even single attack spells and ranged attacks for creatures that don't have precise shot), with out worrying about friendly fire.


----------



## Petrosian (Nov 26, 2002)

My observations on archers in 3e.

In our group, the archer is a ranger-druid multiclass.

He has a might bow (+4 strength) which is +1 Acid enchanted (I think they call it corrosive... add +1d6 acid to a shot.)

Easily half the time the acid is irrelevent due to protections or resistances.

He is consistently one of the more damaging combatants. The dwarven fighter minmax keeps up but barely.

his feats include point blank shot, precise shot and rapid shot.
He could have had focus and crit by now but spent feats elsewhere.

The problems which i see are as follows...

RAPID SHOT is too good. it allows an extra shot at just -2 to all. this is too good. THe equivalent melee feat requires two feats to pull off AND the off hand shot is at reduced damage as well. 

STACKING the bow and arrow enhancements is too good. This becomes critical once GMW enters the picture. This will just get worse in a few levels when CHAIN GMW at 15th level enables with one 6th level spell for 16 weapon.ammo sets to be made for 15h  hours each. Thats +5 weapons, bows and arrows for everybody. While this is an issue of concern (GMW is too good) it is compounded by the stacking of enhancements for bow and arrow.

The result is obscene. After taking the -2, he is getting more shots and his +8 hit +10 damage from GMW is still a lot better than the melee fighter with his +5/+5.

had this guy been a fighter and bow specialist...

Focus, Specialization and improved crit.
point blank, rapid shot and precise shot.
those are easy enough to gain for a fighter... and add up to normal shots at +2/+3 within 30' or extra shots with net +0/+3.

All together, archery is a double dipper in several areas and can get too potent too quickly, IMO. This effect is amplified by the already too strong GMW spell.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Nov 26, 2002)

Unless you get hit by Chain Lightning or similar spells.

Edit: This should have been a reply to the post that listed AE spells as archer weaknesses.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 26, 2002)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> *Actually, Rackhir was 12th or 13th at the point where he took on the retriever and with not too much bad luck it would have killed him. So it didn't do to badly considering it's a CR 10 Monster and Rackhir was a very formidable archer. *




You're right, 12th level it was.  I didn't mean to imply that Rackhir shouldn't have been able to do it...he was built purely for that effort, and built well.  My concern was that combats were rapidly becoming decisions of 'how do I prevent the archers from being effective enough to allow the others a chance to contribute'?  In this case, I think having two high-powered archers was as much the problem as anything else.

As I said, I'm of two minds on the topic.  I haven't restricted archers in my game, and am not likely to in the near future.  There are plenty of ways to slow them down, if one is of a mind to do it.  On the other hand, I don't want to have design combats to defeat a single or set of players from fulfilling what their character was designed to do.

The retreivers illustrates a problem with the imbalance of raising ELs, though (note that there were two retrievers for a EL 12 encounter).  Had both the retrievers wanted to, they would most likely have been able to kill a single player per turn.  Had Rackhir not been properly buffed, he would have been killed just as quickly as he killed the retreiver.  As it was, he very nearly was anyways.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 26, 2002)

How to deal with archers?

Charge 'em and sunder the bow.  That ought to be standard tactics, just as charging a spell caster might be, to take them out quickly.

Archers and spell casters are both long-rang threats and should be dealt with as soon as possible by any reasonably experienced foe - who should know better than to try and fight everyone at once.

When the situation favors them, they are terribly effective.  That's fine.  Make sure the situation doesn't always favor them and you'll be fine.

NO character can overpower every encounter.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 26, 2002)

Even if you allow enhancements from magic bows and arrows to stack (I do), I would NOT allow GMW cast on bow & arrows to stack.  I'd rule it similar to casting two GMW on a sword -- you might extend the duration, but the most you get is +5.  If the archer wants to stack his +5's, he's got to go spend the gold or find the weapon.  It may not help a lot, but it will cut down on the most blatant abuse.


----------



## Grog (Nov 26, 2002)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *Erm, DR is an essential part of a monster's challenge as they go up in CR.  While there may need to be a fix for GMW abuse, it is critical for an archer character to have access to the magical weaponry appropriate for his level.  Otherwise, he's doing *nothing*. *




Exactly. And this is what magic arrows are for. Sure, without GMW there's resource scarcity to be confronted - but this makes the game more interesting. The archer can use his magic arrows in every fight if he wants - but he'll run out eventually and then he's screwed if he comes up against an enemy with DR. Or he can save his arrows and be a little less effective. Or he can try to strike a balance between the two. And if the DM does his job right, the archer should never run up against an enemy he can't hurt - unless he chose to use all his magic arrows beforehand.


----------



## Rackhir (Nov 26, 2002)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *Even if you allow enhancements from magic bows and arrows to stack (I do), I would NOT allow GMW cast on bow & arrows to stack.  I'd rule it similar to casting two GMW on a sword -- you might extend the duration, but the most you get is +5.  If the archer wants to stack his +5's, he's got to go spend the gold or find the weapon.  It may not help a lot, but it will cut down on the most blatant abuse. *




Given the massive amount of bashing on GMW and bow + arrow stacking. I feel that I should point out that there are comperable features on the defensive side.

Has everyone forgotten that the Shield and Armor Bonuses stack?

Has everyone forgotten that Magic Vestment on Shields and Armor Stack?

So, if you forbid the things the archers benefit from are you going to ban the similar benefits the armor and cleric types benefit from?

Frankly to a certain extent I think the whole "Problem with archers" is over blown. 

Yes, archers especially well crafted archers are very effective characters IF given proper support by party members. So those "ineffective" other characters are vital for the archers to be the efficient killing machines that they have the potential to be. In essence, you are complaining that the party is functioning as a team. Isn't that the point of the game? In Wizardru's campaign I can remember a number of times when insufficient cooperation made battles much harder than they could have been. 

Finally, once you start hitting the upper levels with 7th lv spells to a lesser extent and 8th + 9th level to be sure. Spell casters rapidly start to dominate things.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 26, 2002)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Has everyone forgotten that the Shield and Armor Bonuses stack?
> 
> ...




I see your point (and have to say that personally, I've seen no problems with archers that weren't balanced by other character types).

I don't allow Magic Vestment effects to stack (I don't allow any single spell to be cast twice with its effect stacking on the same character).  Yes, armor and shields stack (which I why I allow the bow + arrow stacking), but if there were a "Greater Magic Armor" spell I wouldn't allow it to stack on both.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 26, 2002)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> *Finally, once you start hitting the upper levels with 7th lv spells to a lesser extent and 8th + 9th level to be sure. Spell casters rapidly start to dominate things. *




Me, I'm not planning on changing anything.  But you ought to check the lastest episode in the story hour.  Scorch cast a meteor swarm, and rolled average, doing 87 points of damage.  Kayleigh delivered 164 the turn prior.  9th levels spells are pretty powerful, but so are 17th-20th level fighters.  It's all relative.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Nov 26, 2002)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> *It's pointless for a non-warrior type (I'd even daresay a non-fighter) to try to excel on the battlefield. It's pointless for a multiclass wizard to try to excel on the spell part. It's pointless for a fighter to try to excel at sneakning around.
> *




If you define "excel" as "deal the most damage per turn" then yes, but that's not the most important part of combat IMHO.

It's a question of offense versus defense, or power versus flexibility.  If your character is optimized to do damage in one and only one way (archer, for example), and someone finds a way to make that problematic, you're out of options.  Look at all the ways you can keep archers from being effective: wind, darkness, cover, closing to melee range, or Protection from Arrows.  If they're not casting GMW all the time, their arrows will usually be low in magic, which makes DR a problem far more often than for melee types.

Maybe you've got an archer that can deal out 200 points a turn, but if you're too busy fighting defensively or if you can't target the guy, that offense is useless, and you've sacrificed your defensive ability in the process.

The most effective fighter-type I ever played was a Psychic Warrior.  She wouldn't outdamage the pure Fighters, although the difference was relatively minor.  She lost a little BAB, a little HP, and a Feat or two.
On the other hand, she was practically impossible to take down.  Combat Precognition, Improved Biofeedback, Displacement, Inertial Barrier, Animal Affinity, and the Vigor series (post-errata) let her take far more damage than the Fighters could.
Then, there were those "special circumstances" that are so common at high level.  Magical Darkness?  Vigilance.  Need to get past an obstacle?  Polymorph Self or Dimension Door.  Big dragon with huge AC?  Deep Impact.  Got ambushed while taking a bath so your weapon isn't near?  (Yes, it happened)  Call Weaponry.

Taking the classic Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric party is fine, if you're playing Gauntlet.  Against a smart enemy in 3E, you'll spend a lot of time protecting the casters.  I've been in parties where we didn't have a single one of those classes, and the only one we missed was the Cleric.

Anyway, back to the original topic: I agree with most of Petrosian's points.  But, to me it's not so much that a specialized archer is so good.  A specialized offensive player SHOULD be able to do lots of damage.
It's that a normal Fighter-type can still do incredible damage just by using GMW-enhanced bows and arrows with a couple Feats, far less than it'd take to scale your melee damage in the same way.

To me, the first step would be to nerf GMW slightly.  How about this for a house rule:
When GMW is cast on a bow, the "temporary" enhancement bonus only applies to attack rolls (if the bow already had an enhancement bonus, that lower bonus still applies to damage rolls).  When cast on arrows, the bonus only applies to damage rolls and the ability to bypass DR.
So, you only get both the attack and damage bonuses if the magic was inherent, or if you have Arcane Archer levels for the arrows.

As for the Shield+Armor thing, there's a big difference: using a Shield requires you to use an additional slot (your off hand) that would otherwise be used for more damage (either from a bigger weapon or an offhand weapon).  If I have a STR of 18, I lose on average 4.5 damage for dropping from a Greatsword to a Longsword.  If the sword-n-board guy Power Attacks to make up for the difference, the Greatsword guy could use Expertise to make up for the shield's AC.


----------



## Bastoche (Nov 26, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you define "excel" as "deal the most damage per turn" then yes, but that's not the most important part of combat IMHO.
> *




I define "excel" as "being the most susceptible to come out alive" of the afforementioned situation.

A fighter without armor and with a few skills points could sneak, but will never be as good as the ranger or the rogue.

IMO, a good fighter has a speciality, but could match a paladin or a ranger or a barbarian on each of their field of (combat) expertise. To acheive that, you could, for example, devote your bonus feat on your specialisation and devote your normal feats on other aspect of the battlefield. That's why, IMO, prestige class shouldn't be available before 7th+ level.


----------



## Arcanus (Nov 27, 2002)

A couple of things to make archers think first before unloading with a full attack with their bows:

1. A Mirror of Opposition somewhere in a dungeon setting. Give the archers a taste of their own medicine.

2. Headband of Reflected Arrows (from BOEM II). If an archer goes full attack on a guy wearing one of these he probally will kill himself or remove himself from combat for healing. This SHOULD scare the crap out of anyone using a missle weapon for his main attacks in combat. They aren't terribly expensive either. If this happens at least once and is successful the archer will remember it for a long time and might not shoot full attacks until he has at least checked his opponent with 1 shot first.

3. I don't remember at any point in LotR that the fellowship whined to Legolas that he kicks too much butt and he needed to tone it down some.

4. In the military we have people called COUNTER-SNIPERS.
Send an archer after the archers. Fight fire with fire. You will be surprised at how fast the archer characters will spouting out the rules on what you can't do at what range etc.. They will be crying they have cover and the opposing archer should have this penalty etc... They won't like being shot at one bit.

5. House rule that the archers need lightning reflexes and quickdraw to get so many attacks per round with their bows.
House Rule that they can't take a full attack at (insert range here) until they have shot 1 arrow at (insert ranges) to find the trajectory or whatever technical term. Only full attacks at closer ranges like point blank range (example only) until the right trajectory-angle- whatever is found. This should give your melee combatants time to engage for some fun.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 27, 2002)

Arcanus said:
			
		

> *3. I don't remember at any point in LotR that the fellowship whined to Legolas that he kicks too much butt and he needed to tone it down some.*




That's because in that work of fiction, not a game, the melee characters got to kill just as many orcs as the archer did.  Particularly if you watch the extended version of LotR, you'll see a lot more shots of Gimli laying the smack down and even the hobbits contributing more.  

My problem with your other solutions is they are tantamount to punishing the archer for being competent.  That's not a better solution, IMHO.  A well designed archer delivers damage well...the problem is trying to find the fine line between presenting challenges the entire group can face while not punishing one character for being more effective at one specific task than another.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 27, 2002)

I don't think counters that rely on a specific magic item are all that great, since you don't often encounter the same magic item time after time.  I also don't like the archer-nerfing solutions you (Arcanus) suggested, because they're basically punishing the archer for being good at what he does.  I think the solutions are to use a better mix of encounters... enemy archers, enemies who have better ranged attacks than the archer (thus demanding that the party close or die), and most especially judicious use of cover and concealment, especially from other party members.  The npcs can adjust their position so that the tank's in the archer's way pretty easily, in my experience.  The first time the party's tanks get plugged in the back by the party archer and suffer 20-odd points of damage isn't so bad, but by the fifth time of the night the rest of the party starts getting tired of it.  All the archer has to do to obviate this problem is to move around for a clear shot- but this means no full attack every round.  

3e is so tactical in nature that anyone who can stand still and just keep firing off arrows has an intrinsic advantage.  Use the battlefield a little and it ain't so easy.


----------



## Mirkhalys (Nov 27, 2002)

If the archers are protected by tanks (as they should), send in a Psychic Warrior with the follwing feats:

Speed of Thought
Psionic Charge
Up the walls
Power Attack
Sunder (and maybe Great Sunder)

Along with 2 or 3 other tanks. The tanks charge each other and enter melee, the psywar runs up the wall, avoid any attack of opportunity and charges the archer.

Then sit back and watch the archer die.


----------



## Grog (Nov 27, 2002)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> *Frankly to a certain extent I think the whole "Problem with archers" is over blown.  *




To a certain extent I agree, but the fact is that allowing the magical bonuses of bows and arrows to stack makes archers considerably more powerful than meele characters. Archers can get +10/+10 hit/damage bonuses from magic. To get +10/+10 from a meele weapon you need a greater artifact!

Now, the strength bonus from an archer's bow will max out at +4, while it doesn't max out for a meele weapon. So if a meele fighter can get his strength high enough, that will balance out the magical bonuses from the archer's bow and arrows.

But there's still the fact that archers can make full attacks from the get-go, while meele fighters often only get one attack in the first round of an engagement because they have to close with the enemy. And meele fighters are in all kinds of danger from the special abilities, grappling, or even just plain damage from monsters, while archers are often safe since they fight from a distance.

So IMO there is a game balance problem. But I think GMW is the source of it - without access to an essentially unlimited supply of magic arrows, archers are much more in balance, again IMO.


----------



## Ramien Meltides (Nov 27, 2002)

Here's a thought:

Come up with an evil monastery that the PC's must oppose or destroy. Ta da... monks are pretty effective at not being toasted by arrows. Plus, deflect arrows is a low level ability, so you could have either a few high-level monks or a lot of low-level monks as the opposition in a given encounter. It's worth a try.


----------



## Endur (Nov 27, 2002)

*GMW, Archers, etc.*

I have seen archers wax and wane.

I really don't think they are too out of balance.

Let's assume, for instance, that we are dealing with a high level party.  Enough +5 GMWs for everyone in the party, so that archers can get two (one for bow and one for arrows).

level 15 (or higher caster level)

Well, in addition to GMW, all of the fighter types are probably also receiving Bulls Strength.  Archer str bonus maxes out at str 18 (+4 to damage).

Let's suppose our melee type receives a twice-empowered bulls strength (a 6th level spell, reasonable considering that the spell casters have 8th level and possibly higher level spells).

So lets look at our typical 16th level 1/2 orc barbarian, Krusk

Krusk has str 22, plus rage(+6) so str 28 plus twice empowered bulls strength (figure +6 or +8), so total strength around 36 =
+13 strength modifier

Add the fact that Krusk is using a two-handed weapon, his actual damage bonus from strength is +19, compared to an archer's +4.

Add in Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave, and all of a sudden, the archers don't seem quite so powerful, even though they have GMW on both their arrows and their bows.

And we're not even talking about prestige classes yet.

Tom


----------



## hong (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: GMW, Archers, etc.*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *I have seen archers wax and wane.
> 
> I really don't think they are too out of balance.*




Not even my guy who did 300+ points of damage to that black dragon?


----------



## hong (Nov 27, 2002)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, archers especially well crafted archers are very effective characters IF given proper support by party members.*




Cf. the "Poor Bloody Infantry" quote of mine, above.



> *So those "ineffective" other characters are vital for the archers to be the efficient killing machines that they have the potential to be. In essence, you are complaining that the party is functioning as a team. *




No, he's complaining that one segment of the team is hogging the spotlight time as a side-effect of how the rules work. That's not how things should work, at least not in my book.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: GMW, Archers, etc.*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not even my guy who did 300+ points of damage to that black dragon?  *




That was nothing compared to the kobold that did 500+ points of damage in one round.   Meepo would be proud.
Helpful Hint for everyone: When a foe is Great Cleaving against summoned Dire Bears, stay out of melee range.

Geoff.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 27, 2002)

I don't see any problems with Core Rules archers. Stack the bow and arrow bonusses if you want. I don't see many problems with Sword and Fist archers and even MotW archers don't seem too bad.

However, archers have a number of feats available to them that are too good. Manyshot is one of those feats. By allowing archers to take essentially full attacks with partial actions, they make haste three or four times as good for archers as for melee characters.

The other problem ability is any kind of ranged power attack. I'm told that Peerless archer gets this. That's a problem waiting to happen though since archers get to stack bow attack bonusses, arrow attack bonusses, and an uncapped dexterity attack bonus. Melee characters have an uncapped strength attack bonus and an uncapped weapon attack bonus but not the extra stacking bonus.

It should be noted that (at least according to the story hour) the character in Wizardru's game who blew the dragon encounter out of the water used Manyshot to do it. . . .


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 27, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *However, archers have a number of feats available to them that are too good. Manyshot is one of those feats. By allowing archers to take essentially full attacks with partial actions, they make haste three or four times as good for archers as for melee characters.
> 
> [...]
> 
> It should be noted that (at least according to the story hour) the character in Wizardru's game who blew the dragon encounter out of the water used Manyshot to do it. . . . *




True, true...but I don't think Kayleigh (the archer in question) was out of balance for doing it.  If anything, I think it shows that Haste is a little too good, perhaps.  In that particular case, the abyssal dragon was insane, or he would have shut Kayleigh down a round earlier...the round prior to when she delivered the damage.  As it was, she did 164 points over 7 attacks while hasted, using the full feat chain for archers, (including being an AA) many shot and scored a *series* of critical hits with a bow using elementally charged arrows.  Strong, yes, but for a 17th level character, not insane, especially since this particular dragon had very little spell power, and no elemental resistances.

Once the force cage went up, she was effectively out of the combat, just like the party mage, who was in a Maze.  In point of fact, it was a fifty-fifty roll for the maze spell, and Scorch "won".  In the previous session, the paladin did almost an equal amount of damage in melee, but over three attacks with crits, not seven.  AND he was operating in a demiplane that was strongly chaotically-aligned, with the incumbent penalties therein.

That said, I don't like creating too many convoluted situations purely to stymie one or a set of players.  This is why one combat will be with non-corporeal creatures, this one with undead and that one with powerful evil outsiders.  I don't want to penalize my players, I want to reward them.  And I definitely don't want to set up situations where it's obvious they were constructed purely for the purpose of meta-gaming balance.  I'd like to think that I've been accomplishing that.  I do know that when I focus on any more campaigns, a lot of limiting factors that I didn't use this time out will be present next time (such as the use of point-buy, which I've seen have a dramatic effect in the other game, for example).  I know it's hard to tell from our current story hour situation, but there was a time when my players feared of ever getting a +2 weapon, or even an enchanted weapon for each party member...let alone enchanted armor.


----------



## hong (Nov 27, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> As it was, she did 164 points over 7 attacks while hasted, using the full feat chain for archers, (including being an AA) many shot and scored a series of critical hits with a bow using elementally charged arrows.  *




Damn, now I feel positively inadequate.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 27, 2002)

*Throwing my hat in the ring*

Although I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me about this, I think it's acceptable that archers should do more damage than melee combatants. 

The archer has two (related) things going for him: Ability to attack at long range & a chance to get a full attack off very often. The melee combatant has a lot more versatility, with access to all sorts of combat maneuvers, the ability to threaten an area around him and take AoOs, & no problems regarding ammunition, etc. The melee combatant can disarm, trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, cause subdual damage, etc.  In comparison, the archer is a one-trick pony. He causes damage and that's all he's got. So not surprisingly, comparisons between the two based purely on hitting & causing damage (which are the vast majority of comparisons in this thread) make the archer seem overpowered. 

Neither the archer nor the melee tank is completely self-sufficient. Each fills in aspects that the other lacks, and neither will overshadow the other in a campaign which has some variety in the type of challenges faced. YMMV.


----------



## hong (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Throwing my hat in the ring*



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> *The melee combatant has a lot more versatility, with access to all sorts of combat maneuvers, the ability to threaten an area around him and take AoOs, & no problems regarding ammunition, etc. The melee combatant can disarm, trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, cause subdual damage, etc.  *




However, few of these are really relevant when it comes to fighting bigass monsters. Said bigass monsters often also have very scary specials that only come into play in melee: energy drain, ability drain, poison, improved grab, swallow whole, etc.



> *In comparison, the archer is a one-trick pony. He causes damage and that's all he's got. *




However, it's a trick that has surprisingly widespread applicability.


Hong "not to mention it gets the chicks" Ooi


----------



## Zad (Nov 27, 2002)

Speaking as one of these evil archer types... 

I'm just one data point. The constraints of the individual campaign and the individual characters will change things a great deal. However it's my opinion that things are not too out of whack.

In the earlier levels, I was the big artillery. Mostly because I was a consistent source of damage. The mage could do more, sure. But he was resource limited, and there were saving throws to be made or blown. My arrows did steady, reliable damage.

As things have progressed, I am still one of the major sources of party damage. And again, my virtue is that I'm reasonably consistent. (Barring constructs - evil wicked things.)  

The paladin can do as much or easily more damage than I do in a round. He has to be close of course, and things like the enemy being a demon help a lot, as does a lower AC so he can power attack. But he can trump me in some situations. And of course he can take the abuse far better than I.

The rogue looks like she's rolling damage for a fireball, not a melee attack, when those sneak attacks go off. Again, the opportunity needs to arise, but with her stealth and movement capabilities, it's not very hard to set up.

The mage.... he scares me. The no-save meteor swarm was rather large. His huge virtue is that he can hit multiple targets. He can take out an entire room full of monsters - I can really only lay into one at a time. This applies to the cleric and druid as well.

And let's not forget that there's more to the game than combat people. I have some flexibility but not tons. The mage, cleric, and druid can tailor themselves to any situation given some prep time.  Even something as simple as Dispel Magic is an enabler that allows other party members to be more effective. That's something you can't measure in "Damage per round".

I have walked this path. I don't feel it's out of line with the rest of the party.


----------



## comrade raoul (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Throwing my hat in the ring*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *Hong "not to mention it gets the chicks" Ooi *



...blame it on him.


----------



## mkletch (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: GMW, Archers, etc.*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *Archer str bonus maxes out at str 18 (+4 to damage).*




Actually, nowhere is a maximum for strength bows stated.  The table only goes to +4 for prices, but you have the formula for them.  You could have a Masterwork Mighty (+13) Long Composite Bow for the Krusk mentioned below that only costs 1700gp.

-Fletch!


----------



## Bastoche (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: GMW, Archers, etc.*



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, nowhere is a maximum for strength bows stated.  The table only goes to +4 for prices, but you have the formula for them.  You could have a Masterwork Mighty (+13) Long Composite Bow for the Krusk mentioned below that only costs 1700gp.
> 
> -Fletch! *




That would be a house rule IMO.


----------



## Yellow Sign (Nov 27, 2002)

Humm, If your feed up with someone's Uber-Archer let alone Two Uber-Archers, do something about it. Have them fight is a tight 5 foot wide twisting tunnel and attack them from the front and the back. Attack them with giant skeletons or other creature that is immune or resistant to piercing attacks. Have a evil mage cast Dispel Magic on all those Greater Magic Weapon bows and arrows. I don't care how powerful they think their Archers are. You as a GM can do something to make them sweat alittle. 
Now if you are upset that your melee fighter is getting out shined by the above said Uber-Archer, thats just sour grapes. I would just worry about your character and not someone else who is "stealing" your spot light. There is more to gaming than who does the most damage. I played a archer and I got bored with him because thats all he could do!

My two cents.


----------



## Endur (Nov 27, 2002)

*Mighty Composite > +4*

You raise an interesting point.  Storm Giants are equipped with +14 Mighty Composite Bows.  On the other hand, all of the Gods in Faerun and DDG are limited to +4 Mighty Bows.

So, it might be that if you are huge size, you can use a +14 mighty bow, but medium size creatures are restricted to +4.

Tom



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, nowhere is a maximum for strength bows stated.  The table only goes to +4 for prices, but you have the formula for them.  You could have a Masterwork Mighty (+13) Long Composite Bow for the Krusk mentioned below that only costs 1700gp.
> 
> -Fletch! *


----------



## Rackhir (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Mighty Composite > +4*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *You raise an interesting point.  Storm Giants are equipped with +14 Mighty Composite Bows.  On the other hand, all of the Gods in Faerun and DDG are limited to +4 Mighty Bows.
> 
> So, it might be that if you are huge size, you can use a +14 mighty bow, but medium size creatures are restricted to +4.
> 
> ...




The rules are somewhat ambigious on the point of "Mighty" bows. There is nothing I have seen in "official" material, that states that a composite bow is limited to a maximum of +4, but there is also nothing that states that it isn't and that is the maximum value that is shown. 

Either side can be argued with equal reasonability and both have good arguments. So I'd say it's one of those things that ultimately comes down to a decision by the DM and trying to argue the point is fairly useless. 

In any case unless you are hitting very high levels (say 15+) when stat boost items are common as dirt, most normal archers aren't going to have a strength bonus that is going to exceed +4 any way given the need for high dex. Archers can't dump all their increases/bonuses into pumping just one stat like a melee character can.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Mighty Composite > +4*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *You raise an interesting point.  Storm Giants are equipped with +14 Mighty Composite Bows.  On the other hand, all of the Gods in Faerun and DDG are limited to +4 Mighty Bows.
> 
> So, it might be that if you are huge size, you can use a +14 mighty bow, but medium size creatures are restricted to +4.
> 
> ...




I think that in a previous thread on this topic, there was some sort of formula figured out for how good a mighty bow of a given size could be.

Note that composite shortbows only go up to +2.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 27, 2002)

A few additional points...

(1) The PHB-only archer does not seem out of hand to me.  I wouldn't touch most PrCs with a 10' pole, though.

(2) Against a single Big Boss monster it is very convenient to be the guy in back, and not the melee grunt who is eaten first.  This is not a problem in 3e invented by 3e.  If anything it is _less_ of a problem now than before -- more dynamic movement makes being within 30' of the brawl unsafe.

(3) Against multiple opponents, a tactical savvy PC can do amazing things with Spring Attack + Cleave + Reach.

(4)  Did I mention Obscuring Mist yet?  Yes?  Well I will again.  Players and DMs often overlook the value of reshaping the battlefield early in the combat.  This is devastating against both wizards and archers.


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 27, 2002)

The answer is painfully obvious.

DM Rule #1: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If I'm the DM, I start throwing twinked archers back at your group - and since they believe in the power of the bow over the power of the "Tank" they ignore the slowly approaching tank to blast the heck out of your archers.  Alternatively, use spellcasters to rain down fiery destruction on your archers from behind the safety of a wind wall.

Repeat again and again and again until archers give up their twinkdom.

The problem with twinking (as a player) is that all the DM has to do to stop it is take the twinked character, copy it, and advance it a couple of levels to do you worse than you can do him.  Twinks tend to be a little less enthused when the find a twink that's better at doing their "thing" than they are.

Adversarial? Certainly.  Does it usually solve the problem?  You betcha.

--The Sigil


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 27, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> Adversarial? Certainly.  Does it usually solve the problem?  You betcha.
> *




Creating an adversarial relationship with your players isn't likely to be a win in my experience.

The player's behavior will only change if they see rewards for other behavior.  The usual response to twinked NPCs is more heavily twinked PCs.

Choosing between specialist and generalist abilities is perfectly valid within the context of the game.  If the players can make a group of specialists work well through good teamwork, they should be rewarded for that.


----------



## Berk (Nov 27, 2002)

Don't know if this was said or not, don't feel like reading a 3 page post atm, but not all opponents think like animals, and then again even animals can come up with slight forms of tactics. Don't always attack head-on with the opponents. Split the field up, have some attack head-on while the rest sneaks around behind. Use mages to dim door behind the advancing melee types while they each bring along their own melee type. Just some suggestions, know you didn't ask for them but couldn't help myself. I personally think archers are nowhere near a nussance(sp?) and pretty easy to kill.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 28, 2002)

> Melee:
> human L7 fighter TWF bastard sword twink
> lizardfolk L5 barbarian 27 AC, long sword/shield twink
> 
> ...




Part of the problem is the word _twink_.

Maybe archers make better twinks than fighters, but be glad your melee fighters aren't toting buckets of snails. Even worse, when a rogue with a Wand of Improved Invisibility does the same thing... or when a druid does insane amounts of damage and blinds his foes at the same time. (Sigh)

I've learned the hard way not to use simply melee brutes. There are a lot of monsters like that in the party, and they are weak against archers... intentionally. There are also lots of monsters that are agile, use spell-like abilities or caster levels, have special defenses, and a few can even dodge arrows (eg thri-kreen, gambol - both in the MM2).

The average AC in the MM is 16. Why aren't your fighters using melee attack? Why aren't they far ahead of the archers, to get those blows in?

You can use monsters that can surprise the party. There are so many monsters with surprisingly high Hide skill checks.

They can always work beside a mage with an Invisibility spell (that makes closing to melee and surprise a lot easier - *a lot*). The Dimension Door suggestion was also cool, especially if the accompanying fighter-type has no qualms about Sundering a bow... or maybe Disarm? I don't know if you can Disarm a bow, but I see no reason why you can't. And why can't a mage cast Invisibility, get close, then cast Hold Person? One of those two archers has a cruddy Will save...

Why isn't a druid using Entangle from cover and concealment with leaves, then following up with Summon Nature's Ally (while his own animal companions close in on the PCs)? Even a mobile archer hates it when his Dex is dropped by 4 points.

Picture them in a few levels, after a mage drops a Domination spell on them. 

They can twink their own AC - think about any monster with one level of psychic warrior and the Inertial Armor feat  Or just use twink NPCs back at them. (If you let them twink, then it's okay to twink back. If you don't want to twink back, then you shouldn't let them twink.)


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 28, 2002)

Okay then, I go away for a bit and the thread explodes. Not that I mind, of course... *grin*



Anyway, I'm not going to comment on all of the counter-archer posts. I understand how to counter archers. All of the suggestions listed are viable ways of making archers completely ineffective. That's not the point, however, since there are a multitude of ways to completely negate melee fighters as well.
.
.
.
A couple of points:


* 1) * As to the rant on my playing DnD like it's a video game: It is an assumption that we do nothing but slay monsters. That is just not the truth. We do a lot of other non-combat related encounters. It just so happens that when we * do * get into combat, the two melee characters are completely outclassed. And combat is the place they are supposed to shine (which they don't.)


* 2) * Raising the EL of the encounters a couple of notches would destroy the party, since one false move (or some unlucky criticals) would cause a TPW.




> * shilsen---
> In comparison, the archer is a one-trick pony. He causes damage and that's all he's got. *




* 3) * Since DnD combat is a hit point based system, dealing large amounts of damage is the best thing you could possibly do.


* 4) * Rapid Shot is really good. It is far better than its equivalents, Flurry of Blows or TWF, because each of the latter need a full attack action 5' foot away from a monster. Granted, Haste can get a melee character into range for a full attack in one round, but then the character is choosing to be subjected to the monster's attacks. (Which is seldom the case for the archer.)


* 5) * I will not use metagaming tactics as my lizardfolk barbarian to nerf the effectiveness of the archers. Example: I will not purposefully get in their line of fire nor will I travel 50 ft. in front of them. This is treating the symptom, and I'd rather fix the cause.


* 6) * Seeking (SaF) is the dumbest special weapon ability ever. So is any PrC or feat that grants concealment reduction. (Although we all know this isn't exactly true; Speed is a lot worse.) 



* 7) * Anybody else think Bracers of Archery are underpriced?


* 8) * That's enough for now, I'm starting to hallucinate, as it's 5:30 am right now. Sleep beckons.


----------



## IceBear (Nov 28, 2002)

I dunno, I guess we tend to have a lot of combat in dungeons and caves where there's not a lot of room for the archers to stay out of harms way for very long to become annoying.

As was posted before, you seem to be complaining about effective teamwork.  The archers are doing damage to your enemies while you're protecting them from harm (by taking it yourself).  Imagine if both of the melee fighters weren't there, how well would the archers do on their own?  In the old Basic D&D days, the fighter protected the spellcasters from harm while the spellcasters did lots of damage.  Now, archers have been added.

If you still have issues, ban some of the more blatent archer cheese feats, weapons, etc.  I don't think it's not realistic that archers are powerful, they were in history.  Their weakness was in melee, and if no one is getting close enough to melee with them, then you're melee fighters are doing their job.

IceBear


----------



## Spatzimaus (Nov 28, 2002)

My Psychic Warrior's favorite tactic was to stand in front of the casters and archers, and using her Glaive, Combat Reflexes, and Stand Still, keep anyone from reaching her teammates.  Against melee enemies, this was huge.  There was one time, six enemies charge at us, all six get frozen 10' away from me, and the Wizard pulls out the Chain Lightnings... fun.
Against enemy casters, well, I also had Speed of Thought, Psionic Charge, and a level of Barbarian; I could get to them pretty easily.

If you've got a party full of low-defense high-offense ranged specialists, then it's like IceBear said, it's a better use of your time to protect them than to charge at the enemy.  Makes friendly AE spells a lot better, too.  It's not a good tactic in every situation; you can't protect them from a big Dragon or a horde of spellcasters, so you'll still want offensive abilities.

The point is, you can't just equate damage output with combat usefulness.  Archers and Wizards are DESIGNED for offense.  They have practically no defense, and there are more ways to neutralize them than melee people in my experience.  So, you can either try to compete with them for damage (and lose, and feel useless), or you can try to protect them, making them more effective in the process.
That being said, certain archer-related Feats and items are a bit overpowered, but to me it's not the catastrophic problem some people are selling it as.  Minor tweaks are all that is needed IMO.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Nov 29, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> * Imagine if both of the melee fighters weren't there, how well would the archers do on their own?  *





Actually, they do about the same amount of damage without us. I know because the Fighter/Rogue archer single-handedly cleared out a huge part of the Speaker in Dreams. (We are only halfway through it, so I don't know how relatively large this particular part of the module really is.)

Anyway, I would agree with your point that archers are primarily offensive characters, except that I have personal experiences to the contrary. In general, the archers have just a couple of AC points lower than a tank, and they have about 5% fewer hps. A TWF character cannot have an AC higher than an archer, nor can his hps be exceptionally better. They are, afterall, both wearing mithril chain shirts, and they both tend to have d10 HD (their Con modifiers are not drastically different.)

This is why I do not compare a mage with the archer. Mages have d4 HD and, though they _ can _ have the highest AC, this is not common, IMX, since most of their spells are intended for other pursuits.
.
.
.
All of this talk of being a part of a team, IMHO, is a rationalization of a flaw in the game. Honestly, heroic campaigns are not supposed to be built around waiting for the mage and the archer to kill everything while the melee fighter stands there looking stupid. (Our melee fighters were so useless one battle, that we took out rations and made camp. *grin*)

I am a fan of heroic fantasy. In heroic fantasy, the bad guys and the good guys face off, mano a mano, and duel to the death; they don't shoot at each other from behind shield walls. DnD does not adequately portray the type of game that I would like to play. Therefore, I have made certain changes to archers IMC, so that archery, though effective, cannot be made so useful and overpowering, that the entire sphere of combat revolves around them.

If I wanted to play a campaign where missile weapons dominated the game (as they do in real-life), I'd add machine guns.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Nov 29, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Actually, they do about the same amount of damage without us. I know because the Fighter/Rogue archer single-handedly cleared out a huge part of the Speaker in Dreams. (We are only halfway through it, so I don't know how relatively large this particular part of the module really is.)
> ...




No offense intended, but all this talk about archers being broken is a rationalization for two poorly designed grunts.  The real problem is your front line fighters don't do anything particularly well, and you are trying to compare them directly to effective specialist characters.

It so happens it is a bit easier to figure out how to make an effective archer than an effective melee specialist.  It also so happens it is quite difficult to build an effective TWF character or one with an ECL mod.

So what?


----------



## IceBear (Nov 29, 2002)

test


----------



## Lela (Nov 29, 2002)

Tower Shield+Ride by Attack or Trample+Horseshoes of Speed=Dead Archer.

Then agian, you asked us not to give you counter measures.  Which makes me wonder why you even posted.  But, if it becomes a problem, I would go with the bow only affecting Attack and Arrows only going with Damage.  There's really no argument against it.

Then again, you could always go with Trolls, Skeleton Warrior  , or Paleoskeleton  undead types.

Then again, that would be counter measures, which you don't want.


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 2, 2002)

I can't argue archery is very effective.  My seven person group all carry bows.  Mage, shaman, all three samurai, the one archery specialist, etc.

The group has found use for archery a few times but it's never been overshadowing.  The wizard's magic is considerably more of a threat than the archers.  Between fights in cities, ambushes, and counter tactics now that the group is becoming known, getting to to the sniper(archer) and artillery (mage) happens enough everyone has some use.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 2, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> All of this talk of being a part of a team, IMHO, is a rationalization of a flaw in the game. Honestly, heroic campaigns are not supposed to be built around waiting for the mage and the archer to kill everything while the melee fighter stands there looking stupid. (Our melee fighters were so useless one battle, that we took out rations and made camp. *grin*)
> *




First, IMO, the design elements in DND which do make teams integral to the play show good results. At its core DND is designed for a PARTY of heroes working together against evil. While solo campaigns, like we see with heroic fantasy where we have one hero and 'the rest", can be done the GM will need to make adjustments, some perhaps serious, to the rules or to the setting to accomodate these goals. The DND rules were, it seems obviously to me, designed to reward and encourage small teams with each character bringing different attributes to the mix.

This seems ideal for a GAME based fantasy setting and ruleset. Its less often seen in heroic fantasy or fantasy novels because in a novel the ability to develop fully more core characters is limited.

As for useless fighters, well, ask yourself this... what would conan do against a flying invisible dragon who could throw fireballs from beyond effective bow range if encountered on a flat open field?

The answer would be... makes for a lousy story.

Conan has a writer who puts him into situations which highlight his strengths, which sometimes exemplify his weaknesses, and always makes for dramtic and enjoyable use of his talents.

In a RPG, that writer is the GM. it is the Gm's job to provide challenges and scenes and adventures that make the session enjoyable and entertaining. This means for everyone. If he has set up a scenario where the fighter are indeed that useless then he should really rethink that scenario design. As an occasional thing, designed to highlight the flaw or better yet, to introduce a puzzle the PCs must figure out how to crack, then it should be Ok but rare.

The GM decides how frequently your gang gets pressed into a series of severe combats. The GM decides how many of your enemies have SR. Your GM decides how many of your enemies have ACs high enough that only really tough fighters can get to it. Your Gm decides how many of your fights take place inside of some sort of wind wall like effect that blocks or deflects or degrades arrow fire. 

If your characters are useless, the first place i look is to the character/player and how well or poorly the design is to be a contributibg member and how well they thought through their options. The second thing i look at is the Gm and his scenarios and see if they provide the source of the "problem." Then, and only then, do i look at rules.



			
				ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> I am a fan of heroic fantasy. In heroic fantasy, the bad guys and the good guys face off, mano a mano, and duel to the death; they don't shoot at each other from behind shield walls. DnD does not adequately portray the type of game that I would like to play. Therefore, I have made certain changes to archers IMC, so that archery, though effective, cannot be made so useful and overpowering, that the entire sphere of combat revolves around them.
> *




You would definitely IMO need to make some changes to change the DND 3e into a primarily one-on-one game. In addition to archery, i would suggest looking at the saves, making fighters and other classes more capable of shrugging off magic, since they wont have dispel capable friends. The entire HP system will need some serious overhaul since it pretty much relies on magical healing in droves (perhaps instead of represeting "higher level" and "combat skill" by more or bigger HD you make it a defense bonus since a "more experienced guy took fewer hits" means less dependence on healing) and so on.

i would probably have looked at the others first, the archery thing not being that huge by comparison for me, but then, i prefer a team game.


			
				ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> If I wanted to play a campaign where missile weapons dominated the game (as they do in real-life), I'd add machine guns.
> *




For addressing my balance concerns on archery, i am looking two changes. First is changing rapid shot to -5 to-hit adjustment and adding an "improved rapid shot" which brings it down to -2. This makes it two feats just like TWF requires. Second is changing the bow/arrow enhancements so that bows provide a plus to hit and arrows provide a plus to damage.

More sweeping changes to GMW, the pricing of magic weapons, and so on are not archery specific, but would have some impact.


----------



## Moleculo (Dec 2, 2002)

whatever happened to protection from arrows? Unless i missed something, that looks pretty effective, since only the arrow's enchantment tis taken into account, and (i am not sure on this one, sorry) that each arrow is sbject to the damage resistance? The wording in the spell is a little ambiguous. So i mean if they are getting it with arrows that dont meet the dr, then the archers arent going to be doing a lot of damage.

jke


----------



## Alariel (Dec 2, 2002)

One casting from a low level Greater Magic Weapon (or even Magic Weapon, for that matter) on the arrows fixes the problem of Protection from Arrows. Personally, I think the DR provided by the spell should go up with the level of the caster, since it is the enhancement bonus of the arrows themselves that determines whether the spell is effective or not.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Dec 2, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *In our group, the archer is a ranger-druid multiclass.
> 
> He has a might bow (+4 strength) which is +1 Acid enchanted (I think they call it corrosive... add +1d6 acid to a shot.)
> *




Irrespective of multi-classing, druids are not permitted to use bows, unless they want to sacrifice all their druid abilities for 24 hours.

This rule seems to have carried over from 2E, whereas the multi-class cleric weapon restriction did not.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Malin Genie (Dec 2, 2002)

Without being completely nerfed, Archers are not uebercharacters if you actually *use* the Encounter Distance and Spotting rules in the DMG.  Most encounters will start less than 100ft away, and many less than 50ft.  

Other things to consider are Tower Shields - they can provide 100% cover as an opponent advances, so *no* arrow fire at all will hit! - full defensive action (+4 or +6 AC, which stacks with a cover bonus if any cover is available) as the opponents advance - illusions (if the archers are loosing 4 arrows per round at a slowly advancing target 300 ft away they'll burn their 50 magic arrows pretty fast, and at the kind of ranges that the archers are effective at, it's pretty hard to discern an illusion) - invisible opponents (Blind-fighting only works in melee and the opponents may well already be meleeing when they are detected - etc etc


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 2, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Actually, they do about the same amount of damage without us. I know because the Fighter/Rogue archer single-handedly cleared out a huge part of the Speaker in Dreams. (We are only halfway through it, so I don't know how relatively large this particular part of the module really is.)



If you're doing speaker in dreams, and your archers haven't been crippled heavily in most encounters, your DM is doing a very, very poor job. Very. I wouldn't mind knowing which particular incident in this module your archer excelled in, because to my mind there are only two places in the entire module where that could happen.
Presuming you've done the previous modules, I can't see how archers could excel in most of those either.


> Anyway, I would agree with your point that archers are primarily offensive characters, except that I have personal experiences to the contrary. In general, the archers have just a couple of AC points lower than a tank, and they have about 5% fewer hps. A TWF character cannot have an AC higher than an archer, nor can his hps be exceptionally better. They are, afterall, both wearing mithril chain shirts, and they both tend to have d10 HD (their Con modifiers are not drastically different.)



Then your tanks are doing a really bad job at being tanks. It sounds like they're slow, low on hitpoints and ac, and useless at offense if your own comments are anything to go on. Your complete unwillingness to contemplate alternate tactics because 'it wouldn't suit the character' basically takes away your right to whine. If you can see the problem, you can damn well bet that the character, who's life is on the line, can see the problem too. And if he won't change, he should retire.


> This is why I do not compare a mage with the archer. Mages have d4 HD and, though they _ can _ have the highest AC, this is not common, IMX, since most of their spells are intended for other pursuits.



Entirely agreed. People think of mages as the artillery. They're not - fighters pull off that job much more expertly. Wizards are the combat engineers.


> All of this talk of being a part of a team, IMHO, is a rationalization of a flaw in the game. Honestly, heroic campaigns are not supposed to be built around waiting for the mage and the archer to kill everything while the melee fighter stands there looking stupid. (Our melee fighters were so useless one battle, that we took out rations and made camp. *grin*)



That's your own fault. I honestly cannot believe that you're that bad, unless you are taking pains to be that bad.

A single round of running gets a character with a movement of 30ft 120ft closer to the enemy. Your characters (assuming full plate here) may be all the way down to 60ft a round running, and 40ft a round charging, especially since none of you are dwarves (never make a dwarf melee combatant... they're just far too slow). As a barbarian, I would expect you could put together a respectable 160ft run, and an 80ft charge.

Encounters in a light forest start at 105 feet, and at that distance, any ranged targets should have at least 30% concealment, as well as some cover (assuming they don't deliberately take cover). Your charge connects on the second round, assuming you still have LOS to the targets, and the targets made no attempt to close with you.

That's a light forest. Barring an open plain, that's the worst possible scenario for an unmounted melee combatant, and you're still attacking in the second round. Most monsters will out-do that.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 2, 2002)

I am aware of that. Early in my campaign i made a few class changes, including an "olde" druid who does not use metal weapons but does gain non-metal weapons such as bows. this was a campaign flavor thing.

Regardless, its not a "druid archers are overpowered" issue, at least, not for me. I could just as easily have used a cleric-ranger example, but i tend to default to in game examples i have seen in play, unless the in game example is somehow significantly skewed.

if you feel the use of a druid invalidates the points about archers, GMW, enhancement stacking, feats or balance already raisedin some way, thats cool. opinions vary.

I also lifted the multiclassing 1-for-1 thing and require character to establish their "normal progression for multiclassing" at character outset.

FWIW, i do have a group of NPC druids who do frequently forfeit their druidic abilities. They primarily rely on the other class (barbarian) and only resort to their shamanistic abilities after a significant period of purification rites. With the druids strong BAB, saves and HD, it works very well. Obviously not as minmaxed as say a barbarian cleric, but the skinwalking (shapeshift) after a day of purification and such just plays so cool.


			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Irrespective of multi-classing, druids are not permitted to use bows, unless they want to sacrifice all their druid abilities for 24 hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 2, 2002)

To this and the following message...

In my experience, archers strengths in play are not "the long range fire before they get here" at all. its firing into melee as the scramble goes on. 

precise shot eliminates the +4 for firing into melee.

double dipping with GMW provides enough enhancement bonus to even ignore the +4 cover allies directly in the path will provide(if that much, its less for medium fighting large.)

Gaining one extra attack at -2 for all with a weapon which gets doublke enhance plus strength from a mid level character (8-12) is really really good.

When they do get clear shots, its even worse.

Now we throw in archer thieves, with improved invis firing for +5d6 to +7d6 sneaks. Remember, firing across a partner provides COVER, not concealment, so he can sneak at will while the tank who has the high AC holds you there.

When i was designing my elven fighter. i avoided taking any focus and such weapon specific feats until about 4th. Then i went with my magical greataxe. As i began to look, i realized that by like 12th level i could be doing more, significantly more, if i went bowman with point blank,precise, rapid, focus and spec than i was already with the axe. Once you get to mid level and beyond, fighters will find hitting is fairly easy in many, many cases. -2 is negligable for an extra swing. its easily compensated by the double enhancement bonuses from GMW and the like.

So while you may be resplete with how to stop the long range archer, the issue is more the archer in the mix, working behind a fighter wall or just relying on movement and feats just like the other fighter.

At least, from my experience.





			
				Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *  Most encounters will start less than 100ft away, and many less than 50ft.
> *


----------



## LordAO (Dec 2, 2002)

I'm getting awful tired of people complaining that the enchantment bonus from bows and arrows stack. For one thing, arrows are one use items. A melee character is benefiting from his sword every time he hits, and it never runs out. Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.

And, yes, the Arcane Archer does it for free. But considering that the rest of his abilities aren't that great and are only once a day, so what? The Order of the Bow Initiate has far better class abilities than the arcane archer, if it weren't for the automatic enhancement bonus, the arcane archer would be next to pointless.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 2, 2002)

LordAO said:
			
		

> *Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.*




GMW ain't that expensive, and that stacks like pancakes.


----------



## Deadguy (Dec 2, 2002)

LordAO said:
			
		

> *I'm getting awful tired of people complaining that the enchantment bonus from bows and arrows stack. For one thing, arrows are one use items. A melee character is benefiting from his sword every time he hits, and it never runs out. Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.*



The trouble isn't so much with the magic arrows themselves - I agree that they're expensive for what they are. Too expensive? Yes for genral use, but a wise archer stores his arrows and uses the appropriate arrow for the circumstance.

No the trouble is with the large numbers of arrows created by the _greater magic weapon_ spell every day. At 15th level that's 50 +5 arrows for every casting that are going to last plenty long enough to be useful. Any archer worth his salt already has his bow ensorcelled as his best weapon, so the arrows are the icing on the cake. It just seems unreasonable that only a missile-weapon user gets to 'double dip' the bonuses. Who else can get a +10 enhancement bonus to attack? The net effect is that the archer's arrows seem to hit true every round, whilst the tanks are struggling in the thick of the melee.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 2, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *To this and the following message...
> Now we throw in archer thieves, with improved invis firing for +5d6 to +7d6 sneaks. Remember, firing across a partner provides COVER, not concealment, so he can sneak at will while the tank who has the high AC holds you there.
> *




If my PC starts getting hammered by rogues, his first action is to reach into his backpack for that Obscuring Mist scroll. By the time PCs have +5d6 sneak attacks (9th level) and improved invisibility (7th level), the enemies ought to have some way of dealing it. Barbarian or rogue levels, darkness, mist, displacement, Fortification Armor, Blink, Invisibility Purge, See Invisibility, True Seeing, or simply being construct, elemental, or undead.

Sneak attacking rogue archers can be effective, but shouldn't destroy all encounters. There is a wide variety of ways for intelligent foes to deal with sneak attacks and invisibility by that point and many unintelligent foes are immune to them.

*



			When i was designing my elven fighter. i avoided taking any focus and such weapon specific feats until about 4th. Then i went with my magical greataxe. As i began to look, i realized that by like 12th level i could be doing more, significantly more, if i went bowman with point blank,precise, rapid, focus and spec than i was already with the axe. Once you get to mid level and beyond, fighters will find hitting is fairly easy in many, many cases. -2 is negligable for an extra swing. its easily compensated by the double enhancement bonuses from GMW and the like.
		
Click to expand...


*
Well part of the issue here is that your character was an _elven_ fighter. High dex, low con. Of course you're going to be a better archer than melee fighter. Make the character a half-orc, dwarf, or human, and things change a little.

Really though, I don't think you're right about the comparison. If GMW (a 3rd or 4th level spell) is automatically included in the archer comparisons, the melee fighter should be able to assume buffs as well.

Taking a really simple example:
Elf Ftr 8: Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12 PBS, PS, RS, WF: comp longbow, WS: comp longbow, Imp Crit: comp longbow, Bracers of Archery, +1 Flaming bow, clvl 8 GMW on arrows 
Atk +16/+16/+11 (1d8+10+1d6) Avg 19/hit
Elf Ftr 12: As above, clvl 12 GMW, +2 Flaming bow 
Atk +23/+23/+18/+13 (1d8+13+1d6) Avg 22/hit

Half-orc Ftr 8: Str 18 (20), Dex 12, Con 14, WF Greataxe, WS Greataxe, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Imp Crit: Greataxe, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, +1 Corrosive Greataxe, Haste Spell
Atk +17 (haste partial charge)/+15/+10 & cleaves (1d12+9+1d6) avg. 19/hit
Half-orc Ftr 12: As above but Str (21) +2 Frost greataxe, Blindfight, Combat Reflexes, Expert Tactician, Power Critical
Atk +22 (haste partial charge)/+20/+15/+10 (and cleaves) (1d12+10+1d6 avg 20/hit)

On the face of it, it looks like the melee fighter is a bit behind in damage dealing. But there are three other factors: the melee character has several other options for more attacks. He has great cleave which enables him to get an indeterminate number of extra attacks if he faces multiple weak foes. He also has expert tactician which enables hit to attack again (at his highest attack bonus) against any foe without their dex bonus. If he rolls well for intiative, is improved invisible, or has a comrade cast darkness on him (sure, he can't see but his opponents can't either and therefore lose their dex bonus--expert tactician kicks in and he can use Blindfight for added advantage), this is better than rapid shot. The melee character can also trade in unneeded attack bonus for damage with power attack. The melee character can also use power critical for an automatic critical threat. Used on the partial charge with power attack 2, that will yield an average of 59 points of damage (3d12+36+1d6).

But the comparison still plays to the archer's strengths. The melee character would get a lot of milage out of multiclassing to barbarian--even if only for one level (and then taking the extra rage feat). That would punch his attack bonusses and damages significantly higher--defeating the archer in either contest.

*



			So while you may be resplete with how to stop the long range archer, the issue is more the archer in the mix, working behind a fighter wall or just relying on movement and feats just like the other fighter.
		
Click to expand...


*
Stopping the long range archer isn't an issue. Since bracers of archery, weapon specialization, and sneak attack all only work within 30 feet, the archer's damage goes down dramatically at long range. The 30' range archer is still quite defeatable (anything that cuts off line of sight works--fog, darkness, etc--and the archer is within charge and sunder (or power critical) range). The Shoot on the Run 45' range (move to 30', fire, move back) archer is a bit harder to deal with but not much.

Archers contribute to a party, but even with the stacking enhancement bonusses, they shouldn't dominate a well-constructed melee character.


----------



## Bryan898 (Dec 2, 2002)

I agree that archers can do some heavy damage, but so can a fighting type if equipped right.  Couple a high strength score and strength and a half for two-handed weapon with specialization, power attacks, and magical weapon modifier and you can easily do 2d6+20 damage an attack.  But all in all it comes down to the simple fact that any class can be simply overpowering... You could rain hell on everything with enervations coupled with haste with wizards/sorcerors... or a nice little harm and quickened inflict light with a cleric.  They all have some rather cheesy stuff.  Just look at my Epic level paladin, b/c greater smite stacks I can smite 8 times a day for +250 damage each, with my brilliant energy i rarely miss, and anything else i use my holy sword spell for which automatically does double damage anyway. As for fighters not being able to catch enemies, you can perform double moves... or even better you can run, you provoke attacks of opportunity if close enough, but you can always also stop before the fight.  Also, I don't know about you, but most of my campaigns fights dont happen in big open fields, and I dont always see the enemy first.  I had a big bad archer like those, and he worked great untill a hidden enemy sundered my bow, which is quite easy to do.  I lost my str and magical damage in one strike, and was rendered useless for quite a while.  
However I think it all comes down to one question... are your players power playing or are they role-playing... cause it really sounds like the former.  It seems that a lot of people are doing this for the purpose of being more powerful.  
I do believe that the power of the archer is somewhat justified though, because like it was said, it was the reason for decline of melee weapons.  However it was also a big reason for the creation of armor, and it holds true that a low level archer would have a smaller chance at hitting a fully armored warrior.  But these archers are obviously expert marksmen and have magic to help them, quite scary.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 2, 2002)

> Archers.  I hate archers.



 - Jamie Lannister

Archers in D&D can dish out lots of pain at long ranges.  Melee fighters can dish out arguebly more at close range.  So what?  I'll tell you what.

Fighters/Barbarians are there to be tossed into the meat grinder.  The melee types charge in and prevent your back line from taking fire, while your back line lays them down.  Melee are pawns.  How is this ever heroic?  If the melee types typically had twice the hp that the archers had, I could see that being fair.  "I can take the pain and keep going, and take several of those bastards with me."  But once the melee guy gets there, he hits the archer a few times, the archer steps back, and the archer pin cushon's him.  If the melee types get to the archers, the archers should be more screwed than that.

I want archers to feel usefull, and I don't like to be annoying and cut bows to ribbons, but what other choice is there?  If the melee did have more hp, due only to con really, he lost those on the way to the archer.

I am most annoyed with the whole prospect of archery because I am playing a wizard who enters melee (polymorph into outsiders because I am an outsider).  The cleric of archery gets most the kills now (14th level) and I am as buffed as I can get.  I can poly into a vrock, cast an 2xempowered bulls str, and take all my 5 natural attacks, and still not match his damage, AC, or spells remaining.  And I had to run up to this guy, who is now hitting me?  

Melee, in general, is a thankless death job.  There is no good way to be defened from missles unless you carry a tower shield.  Is that the only way for melee characters to survive?  Heros in stories don't do that, alone or in a group.  And for once, I would like to be one of those heros.


----------



## hong (Dec 2, 2002)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> *I agree that archers can do some heavy damage, but so can a fighting type if equipped right.  Couple a high strength score and strength and a half for two-handed weapon with specialization, power attacks, and magical weapon modifier and you can easily do 2d6+20 damage an attack.*




An archer can do a full attack from range, often without too much worry about getting attacked back. A tank who does a full attack, and doesn't take down the target, often risks lovely things like energy drain, ability drain, poison, improved grab, swallow whole, etc. At high levels, melee types who stick around in front of a dragon are just looking to get eaten.




> *
> However I think it all comes down to one question... are your players power playing or are they role-playing... cause it really sounds like the former.  It seems that a lot of people are doing this for the purpose of being more powerful.  *




What's wrong with power playing?


----------



## hong (Dec 2, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> On the face of it, it looks like the melee fighter is a bit behind in damage dealing. But there are three other factors: the melee character has several other options for more attacks. He has great cleave which enables him to get an indeterminate number of extra attacks if he faces multiple weak foes. *




IME, Great Cleave is one of the more useless feats once you hit mid- to high levels. Anything that you can kill in one hit probably wasn't a threat to begin with. It's the things that can take the damage and hit back that you should be worrying about.



> *He also has expert tactician which enables hit to attack again (at his highest attack bonus) against any foe without their dex bonus.*




Again IME, this isn't likely to come up unless you actually work at it. Improved invis is probably the most reliable method, and that isn't exactly common. The rogue is probably also going to want first dibs on it.



> *If he rolls well for intiative, is improved invisible, or has a comrade cast darkness on him (sure, he can't see but his opponents can't either and therefore lose their dex bonus--expert tactician kicks in and he can use Blindfight for added advantage), this is better than rapid shot. *




I think the other party members might have something to say about taking away THEIR vision....



> *The melee character can also trade in unneeded attack bonus for damage with power attack. *




This is probably the biggest trump that the melee guy has going for him. I don't think it's sufficient to tip the balance, however, especially when you consider the range of monster specials that only come into play in melee.



> *The melee character can also use power critical for an automatic critical threat. *




Well, if we're using splatbooks, the archer character can also use Manyshot to get an effective full attack with a standard action each round. Overall, I don't think much of most of the splatbook feats.


[edit: made up a "Power Strike" feat to let tanks dish out more damage in conjunction with Spring Attack:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32184

Comments appreciated.]


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 2, 2002)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *
> Entirely agreed. People think of mages as the artillery. They're not - fighters pull off that job much more expertly. Wizards are the combat engineers. *



I suppose this could depend on the spellcaster.  The games I've seen the spellcaster was the one blowing up large sections of the battlefield from a long distance, but otherwise fragile and needing protection.  Fairly close to the role of artillery.  How do you see fighters more as artillery?

Archers are a combination sniper and machinegun, even more so as theyr rise in level and get more and more shots per round.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 2, 2002)

> Well, if we're using splatbooks, the archer character can also use Manyshot to get an effective full attack with a standard action each round. Overall, I don't think much of most of the splatbook feats.



Which splatbook?



> I am most annoyed with the whole prospect of archery because I am playing a wizard who enters melee (polymorph into outsiders because I am an outsider). The cleric of archery gets most the kills now (14th level) and I am as buffed as I can get. I can poly into a vrock, cast an 2xempowered bulls str, and take all my 5 natural attacks, and still not match his damage, AC, or spells remaining. And I had to run up to this guy, who is now hitting me?



Polymorph doesn't give you extra natural attacks (you use your iterative BAB), so your character is actually weaker than you think. 



> What's wrong with power playing?




Some people like it; I know I don't (not since playing 2e). To each his own.


----------



## hong (Dec 2, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Which splatbook?
> *




The ELH.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 2, 2002)

"However I think it all comes down to one question... are your players power playing or are they role-playing... cause it really sounds like the former. "

If my character is a guy who willingly puts himself into the role of the guy who uses his combat abilities to stand between innocents and the forces of darkness, if thats his chosen calling, then it does not seem to me that the role playing and power playing aspects are at odds whatsoever. it would seem that the character would, in character, be developing the best combat abilities he can, so as to enable him to succeed when many lives are on the line, to win out where others fail, and so on.

The player constructing the character to reflect this does not seem to be an issue at all.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

I know this is a houserule, but since GMW seems to be an issue here, I was thinking of not allowing the bonuses from GMW to count for purposes of overcoming DR.  Thoughts?

IceBear


----------



## bret (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I know this is a houserule, but since GMW seems to be an issue here, I was thinking of not allowing the bonuses from GMW to count for purposes of overcoming DR.  Thoughts?
> 
> IceBear *




I think that would make the spell almost useless in many cases.

You would be better off reducing the amount of ammunition you can GMW with one spell. For a high level archer, you have about 12 rounds of GMW ammo per spell. Cut this in half and it is still worthwhile, but makes the characters consider how fast they go through the ammo. This is assuming that they will almost always have more than six rounds of combat per day.

The other thing that should probably be done is making Protection From Arrows increase in power faster than GMW. As it is, you get protection 10/+4 at the same time that GMW is providing +5 weapons. The _only_ time that Protection from Arrows has an advantage is 3-5 levels. After that, the two spells are even for a time and then the advantage goes strongly towards GMW.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Yeah, but I guess I've never liked the idea of a spell duplicating a magic item so completely as GMW does.  I don't think that the spell would be useless, you'd still get the +5 to hit and damage, but if you want to bypass the DR then you should get an appropriate magic item first.  I'd also not have the GMW count for the purposes of sundering either (which was why I was thinking of extending this into DR).  Anyway, that's just my opinion.

I do like the idea of making protection from arrows scale better though.

IceBear


----------



## Vaxalon (Dec 2, 2002)

I think that the best way for the DM to deal with the whole archer problem is to play DUNGEONS and dragons.

That is, put them in the dungeon.  Restrict them, and the ranged attacks won't make as much difference.  There are all kinds of nasty ambushes you can use to put the baddies in amongst the group.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Yeah, that's why (I think) I haven't noticed too much of a problem with archers in my campaign as a lot of it has been in dungeons, and it's hard for an archer to shine in a 20ft by 20ft room 

IceBear


----------



## Pax (Dec 2, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I would agree with your point that archers are primarily offensive characters, except that I have personal experiences to the contrary. In general, the archers have just a couple of AC points lower than a tank, and they have about 5% fewer hps. A TWF character cannot have an AC higher than an archer, nor can his hps be exceptionally better. They are, afterall, both wearing mithril chain shirts, and they both tend to have d10 HD (their Con modifiers are not drastically different.)*




This begs the question: why are the melee twinks wearing mithril chain shirts ... ?  A mithril breastplate, or elven chainmail, or better, full plate armor (mithril or not) would be superior.

Mithril Shirt gives +4 AC, and lots of room for dexterity modifiers; the melee "twinks" must not be well TWINKED, if they're relying on Dex-bonus-to-AC at *all*!!  Full plate, with no extras, is already +5AC  more ... with a 1-point Max Dex Bonus.  That's +10 AC at the highest, so just to TIE that, the Mithril Shirt would have to be worn by someone with a 22 or higher dexterity ... a melee twink should really be pushing for *strength*, not dexterity!



> *This is why I do not compare a mage with the archer. Mages have d4 HD and, though they can have the highest AC, this is not common, IMX, since most of their spells are intended for other pursuits.
> .
> .
> .
> All of this talk of being a part of a team, IMHO, is a rationalization of a flaw in the game. Honestly, heroic campaigns are not supposed to be built around waiting for the mage and the archer to kill everything while the melee fighter stands there looking stupid. (Our melee fighters were so useless one battle, that we took out rations and made camp. *grin*)*




No, a team of specialists is foundational to the genre.  Most, if not all, stories have various characters who each have some special talent, knack, skill, or so on.  You have the great archer, the strength-oriented fighter, the skill-based fighter, the wizard, the healer, the scout, and so on.  These are archetypes for more than just simplicity of game mechanics; they are archetypes because the stories on which fantasy RPGs are based, use them ... and HAVE used them for longer than the written word has existed!



> *I am a fan of heroic fantasy. In heroic fantasy, the bad guys and the good guys face off, mano a mano, and duel to the death; they don't shoot at each other from behind shield walls. DnD does not adequately portray the type of game that I would like to play. Therefore, I have made certain changes to archers IMC, so that archery, though effective, cannot be made so useful and overpowering, that the entire sphere of combat revolves around them.*




Not in the heroic fantasy I ever read.  In the heroic fantasy books I've read, the heroes are usually outnumbered at least two to one by hordes of enemies; the melee fighters' job is to provide an impenetrable "line of death" that the enemy cannot get across, while the ranged fighters (archers, spellcasters, slingers, desperate damsels-in-distress throwing rocks, whatever) thin out the numbers those melee fighters have to face.

I still say the problems in your campaign are problems of GM tactics, in regards to the tactics of the encountered foes.  And a BADLY twinked pair of melee specialists trying to compete with WELL twinked ranged specialists only compounds that.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 2, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This begs the question: why are the melee twinks wearing mithril chain shirts ... ?  A mithril breastplate, or elven chainmail, or better, full plate armor (mithril or not) would be superior.
> 
> ...




I don't know, sure the mithral breastplate would be better, but when it comes to mithral you take what you can get in many games.  As for plate etc. again depends in many games a better AC will in no way compensate for the loss of movement.  A move 15 yaboo can easily be avoided and wasted when facing a relatively mobile enemy.  And if your role is getting in the way of the oncoming enemy a high AC is good but, being so slow that a parapalegic 4 year old could get past you isn't a good plan.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Yeah, that's why (I think) I haven't noticed too much of a problem with archers in my campaign as a lot of it has been in dungeons, and it's hard for an archer to shine in a 20ft by 20ft room
> *




True.  It is also a good scenario for a grunt to get full attacks and the occasional cleave in.  That will level the playing field.

Having watched an optimized 8th level fighter/barbarian wielding a Keen Falchion with Imroved Crit in action, I think this idea that archers dominate combat is nonsense.  The wizard puts Haste on him and he gets his Partial Charge + Full Attack every round.  He also usually gets a Cleave or two per combat.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

As I was trying to post over the weekend (but couldn't) it almost sounds like the DM isn't doing his job.  As a DM, if I see a player is dissatisfied with his character, I take a special effort to make sure that some situation comes up in which that character has a chance to shine.  A nice encounter on a windswept mountain side (where the wind makes archery useless) could help.  Also, when was the last time an archer had his bow sundered?

IceBear


----------



## Endur (Dec 2, 2002)

*Grapple and Trip*

Grapple is the first thing one of my monsters does when he is within reach of an archer.

People talk about sunder, but sunder is risky: you have to out-roll the archer, then you have to have a magic weapon better than the bow's magic.  

Grapple, however, is easy.  All you need is a touch attack to hit.  Normally, grapples generate AOO's, but the archer is holding a bow, so no AOO for him.  Then its an opposed strength + BAB + size check.  And while an Archer may have a decent BAB, most archers are not very strong.

Now, if you are worried that your archer is much better than your monster.  i.e. a 7th level archer against an Ogre.  The Archer's higher BAB may result in the archer winning the grapple against the ogre.  Well, in that case, use the Trip special attack.  BAB doesn't matter, Trip is based on size + strength.  The Ogre should win the Trip and the archer falls on the ground.  The Archer won't be able to use his mighty composite longbow while laying on the ground, so he spends a move-equivalent action standing up and doesn't get his full attack this round.

Tom


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: Grapple and Trip*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *Grapple is the first thing one of my monsters does when he is within reach of an archer.
> 
> People talk about sunder, but sunder is risky: you have to out-roll the archer, then you have to have a magic weapon better than the bow's magic.
> 
> *




Technically no. You only make an oppsoed roll against mellee weapons.  I personally think this is lame and house rulled it to opposed roll for anyhitng in the characters hand.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *.  Also, when was the last time an archer had his bow sundered?
> 
> IceBear *




Since you need an enhancement bonus equal or greater to even get anywhere with a sunder and the archer's bow is magiced up to say +3 or +4 or even +5 with GMW, sunder is really not that serious a threat except for the most potent bad guys. those are often the ones beelined by the tanks. An intelligent archer can keep threatened squares galore bwteen him and a chosen few of the bad guys if he knows what he is doing. An "intelligent" enemy will not usually rush past several tanks, taking AoOs in order to get near the archer. 

For many monsters, who use their own DR as their ability to strike, sundering +3 or better items isa practical impossibility. (This assumes the Gm is liberal enough to count their DR as "vs enhahnced item sunder" apllicable. many would probably treat it by the same dint they treat "vs incorporreal" and rule it does not apply.)

In short, many dragons could not sunder a bow with a +3 enhancement if they wanted to.

While, for a GM, sundering the bow is a good game sense... the player will not have it for future battles, for an adversary on the spot it is less practical. The bad guy will not be thinking " sure, i will fall but i am taking your bow with me cuz you cannot clw the bow back together" normally. 

In short, most of the times i have used sunder tactics, the fights went worse for the bad guys than they did when they went for damage instead. Since with GMW any bow can become a suitable replacement in moments, taking the tactical loses to score a GMic strategic hit seems inappropriate.. 

Now, if you change the enhancement rules, dropping the requirements, allowing any weapon to sunder any other, this might be different.

besides, in truth, sundering a bow is not much harder than sundering an axe, a spear or any other wooden hafted weapon.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

I just asked that question to get a feel for what, if anything, the DM is doing to hinder archers.  As I stated, as this is a game, part of the DMs job is to make sure that ALL the players are having fun.  Since it appears the two melee guys aren't having fun, I was trying to gauge if the DM in question is doing anything to show off the disadvantages of archers.  Putting the party in a situation where the archers were at a disadvantage would allow for the melee fighters to shine.

Yes, I agree that sundering isn't the perfect solution, but I just wanted to get a feel for whether or not the archers ever had their bows sundered.  Me, personally, I'd do something more constructive (like the windy outdoors encounter) than doing something that'll just tick the players off.

IceBear


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 2, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *IME, Great Cleave is one of the more useless feats once you hit mid- to high levels. Anything that you can kill in one hit probably wasn't a threat to begin with. It's the things that can take the damage and hit back that you should be worrying about.
> *




I'll admit that cleave sees a lot more use at high levels than great cleave, but criticals, low-hp bad guys (wizards or rogues for instance), and other effects can make great cleave worthwhile. A melee monster could very easily drop a threatening target with his haste partial charge+power critical, cleave into another threatening bad guy, take his first two normal attacks on that bad guy, great cleave into another bad guy, and finish his routine by using his tertiary attack the third bad guy--possibly dropping him and great cleaving into a fourth.

If the character in question is a raging 12th level fighter/barbarian with an effective 28 strength and a +2 frost greataxe, two hits from him deal an average of 54 points of damage which is enough to drop a variety of villains who could be fairly threatening. Three hits deal 81 hp damage on average and four hits (which is the equivalent of what the first guy in the sequence took) deal 108 hp damage before power attacking--a moderate use of power attack pumps that up to an average of 128 points of damage to the first guy. I think Great Cleave could come into play here. . . .

*



			Again IME, this (Expert Tactician) isn't likely to come up unless you actually work at it. Improved invis is probably the most reliable method, and that isn't exactly common. The rogue is probably also going to want first dibs on it.
		
Click to expand...


*
It rather depends. If the character has good initiative (high dex, improved init), it may come up fairly regularly. If the melee character is a spellsword, Blink is a pretty reliable way of aquiring it too. Sound burst works good at low levels; Glitterdust, Blindness/Deafness, Evard's Black Tentacles (grappled opponents don't have a dex bonus against creatures outside the grapple), Power Word Stun, Power Word Blind, Holy Smite, etc keep the possibility open throughout the rest of the levels.

*



			This [Power Attack] is probably the biggest trump that the melee guy has going for him. I don't think it's sufficient to tip the balance, however, especially when you consider the range of monster specials that only come into play in melee.
		
Click to expand...


*
Power Attack is a wonderful equalizer for the melee monster. Considering the number of counters to archers, it should be plenty. It appears in this case though that either the DM is letting the archers get away with murder or he's completely unaware of the means to counter archers (usually by denying Line of Sight), or the melee "tanks" in question are the most ineffective combatants since the invention of the 10 str, 6 con elf swordsman.

*



			Well, if we're using splatbooks, the archer character can also use Manyshot to get an effective full attack with a standard action each round. Overall, I don't think much of most of the splatbook feats.
		
Click to expand...


*
Fair enough. The difference is that I think the new version of expert tactician is balanced but Manyshot isn't even close to it. (I think there's also a difference between using ELH and using the classbooks too).


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 2, 2002)

Everyone saying that the melee characters in my specific campaign are ineffective and the archers are effective due to player and/or DM error is acting on incorrect assumptions. (Which I understand is partly my fault for not being entirely accurate or precise. Also, we all have different experiences that we bring to this discussion.)


* 1) * This is not the only example I have of archers dominating the game. This is just the most recent.


* 2) * Regardless of the actual statistics of the melee characters, the archers would dominate most battles. This is because the archers kill everything that is remotely a challenge in 2 to 3 rounds. 

If the DM makes the encounters harder, one false step would cause a TPW. (Which almost happened at a lower level when the DM threw a Tsuno, some ogres and some orcs at us.) 

Any melee character, regardless of the situation would get torn up just because they * must * get in melee combat. That means that we * must * maneuver ourselves as close to the bad guys as possible. * The melee characters run to the front and get subject to attacks up the wazoo. *


* 3) * In order to use Ambidexterity, a character must have a Dex of 15+. The example character has a Dex of 16, and has a mithral chain shirt because he is looking ahead to eventually getting a 22 Dex with a +6 enhancement bonus, which will max out the Dex bonus to armor. A mithral breastplate, though it gives an extra armor point, doesn't allow a +6 dex modifier (Which he is eventually going to get anyway. Also, Dex as AC is generally better, IMHO, as it helps protect against touch attacks. And his initiative is generally good enough to avoid flatfootedness.)

Also, although it would be far superior for the above character to use a double bladed sword and armor spikes or a greatsword and armor spikes, that is not the point. It's not that the character * doesn't * hit often enough, it's that he is * never given the chance * to hit in the first place. 

On the off chance he does get to hit, normally the bad guy is already so weakened by the archers that one or two hits drops the enemy anyway.


* 4) * The reason why I don't want counters is because most counters that work against archers also work against melee characters. Sunder, disarm, grappling, concealment, cover, spells, and what have you are all ways to counter * both * archers and melee characters. That's why I don't really need them. Counters really are a moot point.

Specific counters that effect only archers and not melee characters are also rarely seen in combat. (Having every intellegent monster wielding a tower shield is a little lame.)


* 5) * I agree that archers tend to have more trouble in dungeons. In a 5' corridor, an archer is hampered due to cover and the inability to maneuver. (This is lessened somewhat due to a wise selection of feats. Also, cover really isn't that big of a deal, since archers have obscene attack bonuses to hit.)


* 6) * DnD a team game. Sure. But there are other games that have a team mentality that do not have obscene statistics for archers. (My personal favorite is 7th Sea.) 

Just because I am annoyed at archers does not mean I dislike the team mentality. Notice that I haven't brought up any other class. I haven't said that wizards, clerics, druids, rogues or anything else is too powerful. I am specifically bringing up archers because I feel that they have little to no downfall as compared to melee characters.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 3, 2002)

But that is the whole point of melee fighters - to engage in melee and take all the damage to would be going to the back ranks if the melee fighter wasn't there.  Seriously, if that's your main beef then it's not going to change if you nerf archers.  If you just want to have EVERYONE be melee fighters then that'll make it even, but that's the whole purpose of melee fighters.

BTW - what house rules were you planning on introducing to nerf archery?

IceBear


----------



## maddman75 (Dec 3, 2002)

Thing is Buddha, your experiences don't jibe with the experiences of the other people on the board.  Personally, in my seven player group we'll have no more than 2-3 rear line characters - including a wizard.  If there's any more than that, they get swarmed and can't  be very effective.  While we have had some effective archers (the ftr/rog/OOBI twink could lay out 100 a round easy, if invisible), they aren't more effective than well built meatshields, spellcasters, or other characters.

This leads us to two conclusions.  Either your DM is staging encounters so that the archers have a distinct advantage, or the melee characters aren't as skilled at min/maxing characters as the archers are.

You've commented on TWF several times.  TWF sucks man.  It is only advantageous when you have sneak attack.  

You've also commented that the monsters are dead before they ever get to you.  In that case they should scatter and set up an ambush!  THat's on the DM.

ALso, I'm curious as to what your strategies are.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 3, 2002)

Well said, maddman75.

From an average damage POV it hardly matter whether you fill your back ranks with archers or wizards or sorcerors.  

The problem is you perceive that ranged attack specialists are running roughshod over the campaign.  The answer is for the DM to tweak the tactics of the bad guys to deal with ranged attacks.  At 7th level, you are big boys and should be able to handle the odd Fog Cloud or Web or Darkness.

You are incorrect that countermeasures affect the grunts equally.  The NPC monsters and the PC grunts shouldn't mind fighting a brawl, even with a 50% miss chance.  It's just slower going.  The archers and wizards won't be so happy about the prospect.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 3, 2002)

I guess I just can't imagine how all combats would start at a difference.  Maybe I'm just used to dungeon-intensive campaigns, but even in the open there's a ton of ways to just plain deny archers a shot until the battle lines close.  I dunno, I have to say, it sounds like your dm may not be a great tactician.

All it takes is 100% cover or concealment.


----------



## hong (Dec 3, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *But that is the whole point of melee fighters - to engage in melee and take all the damage to would be going to the back ranks if the melee fighter wasn't there.  *




Ya know, it's a good thing we have posts like these, otherwise the tanks might feel unappreciated.


----------



## hong (Dec 3, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> I'll admit that cleave sees a lot more use at high levels than great cleave, but criticals, low-hp bad guys (wizards or rogues for instance), and other effects can make great cleave worthwhile. *




They can, but it's definitely not something you want to rely on. Note that most low-hp people will tend to boost their AC and/or use measures like blink and displacement as a protective measure, so you're not going to hit each time. If something not only has low hit points but also can't bump up its AC, then it almost certainly isn't powerful enough to be a threat.



> *A melee monster could very easily drop a threatening target with his haste partial charge+power critical, *




... once per day, assuming Power Crit even exists.



> *cleave into another threatening bad guy, take his first two normal attacks on that bad guy, great cleave into another bad guy, and finish his routine by using his tertiary attack the third bad guy--possibly dropping him and great cleaving into a fourth.*




Everything's _possible_. This isn't very _probable_, in my experience. And if there really are that many fragile mooks around, the best way to deal with them is via a well-placed fireball (empowered if necessary).




> *If the character in question is a raging 12th level fighter/barbarian with an effective 28 strength and a +2 frost greataxe, two hits from him deal an average of 54 points of damage which is enough to drop a variety of villains who could be fairly threatening. Three hits deal 81 hp damage on average and four hits (which is the equivalent of what the first guy in the sequence took) deal 108 hp damage before power attacking--a moderate use of power attack pumps that up to an average of 128 points of damage to the first guy. I think Great Cleave could come into play here. . . .*




Unfortunately, most CR 12 creatures will have in excess of 100 hp. And a tank with a two-handed weapon is not going to get 4 attacks at 12th level, unless it's with haste.

And what's the barbarian going to do after the charge? If there's anyone left, he's in the teeth of the enemy, with -2 to AC and vulnerable to all those nifty specials I mentioned before.



> *It rather depends. If the character has good initiative (high dex, improved init), it may come up fairly regularly. If the melee character is a spellsword, Blink is a pretty reliable way of aquiring it too. Sound burst works good at low levels; Glitterdust, Blindness/Deafness, Evard's Black Tentacles (grappled opponents don't have a dex bonus against creatures outside the grapple), Power Word Stun, Power Word Blind, Holy Smite, etc keep the possibility open throughout the rest of the levels.*




A spellsword with Expert Tactician? That's new.

In general, I think a tank is better off just concentrating on dealing damage the old-fashioned way.




> *
> Fair enough. The difference is that I think the new version of expert tactician is balanced but Manyshot isn't even close to it. (I think there's also a difference between using ELH and using the classbooks too). *




They're all stupid, IMO.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 3, 2002)

Why do people keep referring to archers as back-line characters?  They aren't.  They're fighters, with sub-optimal melee skills.  An elven fighter with archer as a specialty can still mix it up just fine as a front line fighter...they just chose not to because it's so ineffective compared to the amount of damage they can deliver as opposed to melee.

Dungeon situations aren't terribly worrisome to an archer as long as he can take a five foot step.    I just find it odd that instead of accepting that there are some situations where archers are extremely powerful, the immediate onus is that the DM is bad at his job.

Yes, a DM can create counters for the archers.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that constantly having to tailor every combat to make sure the archer isn't the only one who dominates a battle.  Not every opponent is going to have archer counters.  Not every opponent should...that's just punishing the archers.  

I'm not convinced that archers are broken, but they are definitely very strong, and need more consideration than straight melee...and that may be a problem.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 3, 2002)

Agreed, but IME, archers aren't as dominate as people seem to be making them out.  Maybe it's just my players not trying to "twink out" that I haven't run into it.  Yet another reason why I love my group 

IceBear


----------



## Boone (Dec 3, 2002)

Not to be a complete Bone head...

But what does...  GMW  mean?


----------



## shilsen (Dec 3, 2002)

Boone said:
			
		

> *Not to be a complete Bone head...
> 
> But what does...  GMW  mean? *




It refers to the Greater Magic Weapon spell.


----------



## Boone (Dec 3, 2002)

shilsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It refers to the Greater Magic Weapon spell. *





In a year of owning the 3e book I have never read that spelll.

Can anyone say  hole in your vision?

Thanks


----------



## Fisk (Dec 3, 2002)

Everything seems pretty balanced to me....  

So what if  GMW stacks?

At the 15th + level it takes to cast the +5 on the arrows and bow  the party is probably facing some nasty stuff...

Since Balance is key   the encounter  distances should be balanced by the DM as to incorporate all the PC's talents and skills.   It's not the rules that should be bitched at. It should be the DM that works them.

So one encouter the archers skills are exemplified  next time it may be the fighter....   Who at 15th level should be no slouch either....

With 3 ability points to distribute (strength ?)  and 15 feats.  This Falchon weilding... improved crit, KEENED blade  fighter  Probably has   Belt of giant strength,  And is can have Bulls stregngth cast on him from the same mage who is Casting the GMW.


So now this fighter is crit threatening on  12-20 if he comfirms he's  criting  6 times a round....   with all the magic ehancements and 1.5 strength modifiers....  and bursts if the weapon has that.....

AND... he's   Cleaving and Great cleaving  and  Whirlwinding  and.... and.. ..

and....  I don't get why people are bitching  about archers...   

Bitch about poor DM's  who don't understand  Balance.


----------



## maddman75 (Dec 3, 2002)

LOL - don't feel bad.  My players never used it.  Heck, they were fifteenth level and still carrying around torches, even though I hosed them with darkness several times.  Getting continual flame never occured to them.

SO far everyone's in love with sorcerers, who tend to focus on blowing stuff up.  So they haven't explored the utility spells as much.


----------



## bret (Dec 3, 2002)

Fisk said:
			
		

> *
> With 3 ability points to distribute (strength ?)  and 15 feats.  This Falchon weilding... improved crit, KEENED blade  fighter  Probably has   Belt of giant strength,  And is can have Bulls stregngth cast on him from the same mage who is Casting the GMW.
> *




The mage is probably familiar enough with magic to not cast Bull's Strength on someone wearing a Belt of Giant's Strength. The bonus types are the same, so only the best of the two would apply.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 3, 2002)

Fisk said:
			
		

> *Everything seems pretty balanced to me....
> 
> So what if  GMW stacks?
> 
> ...




I don't see cleave or great cleave come up much, ever.  There is a durid/barbarian in my game who says on occasion "I never get to use that feat."  If I throw the kind of low level mooks at the party that he can cleave, the party wont be hurt.  Is it fun to slaughter peons when they can't hurt you?

The monster manual has a large number of "brutes", large monsters who hit hard, have lots of hp, and maybe a few special abilities.  These act like melee fighters most times, because they are.  When the PCs send out the melee fighters, the get hit by AoOs but the monster doesn't advance.  Now the monster is hurt a little, so he attacks the fighter.  Archer hits it, melee hits it, monster dies.

Only when the melee type is dead does the archer fear for their life.  If the monsters appear right next to the archer, it starts differently, but eventually degrades to melee on monster.  Darkness forces the melee in and the archer will hang back, same result.  Tower shields on most monsters don't make much sense.  Some of the other counters work, but get excessive if used every other combat.  Melee types should dominate half the time, right?  Barbarians are called meat, but there was an archer in a game I played called the elven machine gun.  What would you rather be called?

My experience in 3e is that archers are easier to powergame, take less damage, dish out more damage, and then have little to no weakness that the melee type doesn't.  Melee is the place for hirelings and archery is for PCs, and I like playing melee characters.


----------



## Fisk (Dec 3, 2002)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The mage is probably familiar enough with magic to not cast Bull's Strength on someone wearing a Belt of Giant's Strength. The bonus types are the same, so only the best of the two would apply. *





A stacking issue....  my error  in haste....


But the point shouldn't still be lost   about Balance.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 3, 2002)

I always laugh at people who use two-handed weapons, like a falchion, and rely on crits.

Until very high levels lots of monsters have a hard time hitting AC 30+, but hitting AC 20+ is a lot easier for them.

And those crits never come when you want them. It's great to have a 40% crit rate, but in one battle or another you won't get any crits at all. It's just random chance. I'd rather go with the dependable shield.

The only two-hander I've seen played well was a psychic warrior, since she could manifest Inertial Barrier.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 3, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Not every opponent is going to have archer counters.  Not every opponent should...that's just punishing the archers.*




Archers should be reasonably common in the world, ranged weapons are standard in the game and very utilitarian. Most opponents with any intelligence at all should at least have some method of dealing with archers. They may not be really good at it, but all of them should have put _some_ thought into the issue.


----------



## maddman75 (Dec 3, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't see cleave or great cleave come up much, ever.  There is a durid/barbarian in my game who says on occasion "I never get to use that feat."  If I throw the kind of low level mooks at the party that he can cleave, the party wont be hurt.  Is it fun to slaughter peons when they can't hurt you?
> 
> ...




That's a DM issue.  Some prefer the big baddy - say a gray render for a 6th level party.  And sure, it would be a good fight.  But I'd be more likely to give them a dozen 3-4th level hobgoblins or orcs.  It makes for a more interesting fight IMHO.

In our games, about the same percentage of warriors take Power Attack and Cleave as sorcerers who take magic missile.  Point granted on great cleave though - by the time you get it, you can't really use it.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 3, 2002)

"and.... I don't get why people are bitching about archers... "

Well perhaps its because other don't see archers as somehow inable to use these things you list for melee fighters.

A +1 KEN flaming burst bow costs just as much as the same Axe. (give or take the pocketchage for the mighty+4 etc.)

Lets look at a 15th level archer, an elf say, who has 6 regular feats and 8 fighter feats. 

focus and spec on bow
focus and spec on his melee weapon of choice.
PBS, precise shot, rapid shot
improved crit on both his melee weapon and bow.
Five remaining feats for his fun... lets guess at improved init, blind fighting, power attack maybe and hey, what are the preqs for that power critical thingy on his bow?

See, this doesn't look like an awful lot of lost melee capability there.

he can have similar magic items to the melee fighter so his bow is just as good. In addition to their normal features such as keen and flaming burst or bane or whatever, they are at +5 from the chained GMW from the mage. My archer also has +5 arrows as well from the same source.

The comparison is actually quite simple...

Compared to the melee fighter, i have +5 more enhancement bonus, +1 to hit and damage from my extra point blank shot, I get to take an addition attack per round with -2 as the impact from it (on top of haste and the like), 

So from BAB and enhancement and feats we have...

melee fighter has +5 enhancement, +15 BAB and +1/+2 feat for three attacks at +21/+16/+11 doing damage of weapon+7. Add strength bonus to both of these sets.

archer has +10 enhancement, +15 BAB +1/+1 from PBS and +1/+2 from focus/spec for  +25/+25/+20/+15 for damage of weapon+13. Add dex to the to hit and strength up tp +4 to the damage.

Now, if we figure both characters are able to get boosting items to about the same level we can give the melee fighter a strength of say 30 and a dex of 20 and the archer a dex of 30 and a strength of 20.

Now the numbers become:

Melee: +31/+26/+21 for attacks doing weapon+22 (assumes THF)  so if we are talking greatsword we have an average of 29 per normal hit.

Archer: +35/+35/+30/+25 for damage of weapon+17 (assumes the GM limits kjighty bows to +4) so if we are talking lonbow we have an average of 21 per hit.

Now, in my experience, the extra attack coupled with the better overall to-hit chance will more than make up for the per hit damage difference. this gets even clearer if the weapons are resplendent with special attacks such as fire and flaming burst and bane so that the differences in strength (+4 vs +15) and the differences in bas weapon (2d6 vs d8) become even less significant.

The archer listed above will do more damage over all than the melee fighter. 

Add to this the fact that the archer, since he can shoot from range, has a the ability to get full attacks more frequently than the melee fighter and, being at range, is slightly less subject to counterattacks.

As for crits... after my archer takes KEEN and IMPCRIT i have a 18-20x3. If we assume that I confirm crits no more often than the melee fighter (a BAD assumption because the archers hit chances are BETTER) then this works out mathematically identical to the greatsword with its 15-20x2 after the same three feats. in truth tho, with more shots and higher to hit chances, the archer should get more benefit overall. Now, if the fighter is using a rapier, he gets 12-20 but he also has only a d6 base damage. that brings our base damages to within a point or two and the archer still has the extra shot and +4 hit.

The tactical downside of the archer is that he wont threaten an area, which means enemies can run by him and do other AoO things without fear. If this downside is significant enough to balance out an extra shot and about +4 on to hits... sounds like you have an interesting game.

Rapid shot for a cheap extra attack (only -2) combined with double stacking from GMW and combined with double dipping from PBS and FocSpec are what give archery its overall net advantage in 3e. You can easily design a 15th level fighter who is good at both archery and melee, with foc/spec/impcrit for both a melee weapon and his bow.  before GMW, the PBS cuts the rapid shot penalty down to -1 net... almost anyone will see and extra shot for -1 as a good trade. After GMW kicks in the double stack there takes archery above and beyond.

Can a GM design scenarios to counter this, sure, he can. All balance stems from the GM. A +5 keen holy sword of wounding and a +2 club can be balanced... all you need are lots of clay golems as enemies. A GM can counter nealry any rules imbalance with the right set of circumstances.

I tend to agree that if the "archer edge" is "running roughshod" then there is a good chance that the Gm is not designing his scenarios with PCs balance in mind, that he is not correcting the scenario setup enough to compensate for the "archery edge" and may even be exascerbating the issue.

Heck, he might even be running module encounters right out of the box.

These are certainly considerations...

they do not however counter at all the analysis of archery vs melee effectiveness from the standpoint of the base rules.

So, what the Gm who is having the problem needs to do is ask himself how he wants to deal with it.

he has two basic approaches.

1. Change the rules to bring archery at its basic form into line with what he sees as typical scenario balance. i would suggest making rapid shot a -5, adding improve rapid shot as the -2 version, and splitting bow and arrows to make bow enhancements "to hit only" and arrow enhancements "damage only."

2. Change his scenarios and setups. Add in a lot more cases where beyond 5' you cannot see your enemy or beyond 5' you cannot get LOS/LOE to your enemy and so on. (This means... you will have to consider the impact of this on spellcaster too, since they need LOS/LOE beyond 5' as much as the archer does.) Add more "high winds" scenarios where the wind is fast enough to hinder missiles (and again pay attention to the spell impacts as well as the risk to small or tiny creatures like familiars and gnomes.)

and of course, a combo of the above exists.

Overall, i see it as a rules issue... it stems from a combo of stackings that seem to generate more than they should. I see it as easier to adjust the rules to bring arhcery "on par" than to try and force scenario after scenario into "ranged attack hostile" situations (especially since that will tend to affect mages and other character types as well.) Fixing the archery rules, changing only the arhcery rules, seems a much tighter fix, whose scope does not extend at all beyond the problem, than adjusting scenarios to handle it.

YMMV.

BTW, in last night's game the red's fog clouds tended to not last more than a half round. The PC sorcerer would use dispels to bring them down. See, the red never threw the fog cloud to stop the archer. he was throwing it for general good sense... stopping spells from range and forcing everyone to get within his 10' reach... and for specific to thwart the sneak attacks the rogue was doing. The PC sorcerer took the fog clouds down as quickly as possible, so that he and the other guys could use their abilities to their fullest. Altogether, I would think a GM resorting to copious use of this sort of thing "to handle archers" would tend to find it impacting a lot more than the archers, as well as finding it actually hitting the archers less, they simply dealy until the party mage and cleric take down the cloud, and the spellcasters (who keep using slots and actions  to remove the fog and darkness with dispel) and even the fighters.

YMMV


----------



## IceBear (Dec 3, 2002)

BTW - I have added the -5 penalty to Rapid Shot, Improved Rapid Shot, and the splitting of damage and attack bonuses to my house rules as they seem like reasonable ideas.  *IF* I ever run into issues with archers (with my current players I don't think I will as they rarely do things that is best for the character only what is best for roleplaying the character - I don't have any powergamers at all) then I'll use these ideas.

I'm also going to use GMW only having a 10 minutes duration per level as opposed to 1 hour (and *maybe* not letting it count towards DR and Sundering) but that's another conversation.

IceBear


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 3, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *focus and spec on bow
> focus and spec on his melee weapon of choice.
> PBS, precise shot, rapid shot
> improved crit on both his melee weapon and bow.
> Five remaining feats for his fun... lets guess at improved init, blind fighting, power attack maybe and hey, what are the preqs for that power critical thingy on his bow?*




Power Critical only works with melee weapons, you cannot take it for the bow.

Plus, the converse of your example is that the melee fighter doesn't lose all that much with respect to his ranged attacks. Sure, he's not as good at ranged attacks as the bow specialist, but the bow specialist isn't as good at melee attacks as he is either.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 3, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *I always laugh at people who use two-handed weapons, like a falchion, and rely on crits.
> 
> Until very high levels lots of monsters have a hard time hitting AC 30+, but hitting AC 20+ is a lot easier for them.
> 
> ...




I always laugh at people who use a shield when a animated shield is so cheap.

  Basic concept of the two handed wielder is if I kill you quicker I take less damage.  It frequently pans out.  Relying on crits pans out a lot at low to mid levels where only undead are immune. High levels though I've seen way to many opponents immune to crits to make it much of an issue, though you don't lose much in damage per round the falchion being 2d4 instead of the 2-handed swords 2d6.  Still at low to mid levels those crits end fights often enough that the marignally lower AC doesn't matter because dead opponents don't take swings at you.

Simple fact is virtually every fighting style is effective if you build your fighter to its strengths.  If you haven't seen well played 2-handed weapon wielders in your games its because the ones who played that way either didn't know how or didn't care to.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 3, 2002)

What ranges are these fights starting at?

In a forest the typical starting range is 110 feet (half that if the PCs don't have a good Spot check).

Maybe you just need to change the terrain.


----------



## Rackhir (Dec 3, 2002)

I for one would like to know exactly what the stats are on these characters so we have a better idea of if it's a question of poor construction/tactics or the archers are just that much better. It's always nice to have actual data to go on rather than just broad generalizations.


----------



## Dreaddisease (Dec 3, 2002)

Has anyone mentioned the quick draw feat?  Its a counter to the Grapple an archer thing, which would make an archer who has feats to spare (if a fighter) more lethal.  

I do think that archers are overpowered.  In our campaign we have our first devoted archer (who is new to the party) and he does twice the damage of any other.  The party is 13th level and the archer could only come in with +3 or less items.  All the others in the group had custom weapons they had found while adventuring, most bordering the +5 enhancement.  

In the first 10 combats, 2 against undead, the archer did 35% of the damage, in a party of 7.  And to make it worse the archer dropped at least one creature or did all the damage in the first round at a range of 300 ft (If it was daytime and could see the enemy).  

Our charging paladin with his flyby attacks was barely getting into the battle when we didn't need him anymore.  

The only thing that keeps the archer in check is that he is running out of arrows.  So as soon as the worst part of the battle is over he goes to melee... 

One suggestion is to count carefully the arrows.  A hasted archer of 11+ level in a normal combat can unleash 25 arrows.  Well after a couple battles like that his quiver may start getting scarce on arrows.  This would be one way to balance it.  Plus, like Legolas, using arrows only made by elves or their race can make it more interesting.  A house rule on using foreign arrows can make things interesting.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 3, 2002)

If you change the Rapid Shot penalty to -5, are you going to do the same thing for ambidexterity/TWF?  Spending two feats to get one extra attack per round is the same for archers and two-weapon fighters (PBS/RS nets -2/-2; Amb/TWF nets -2/-2).  Why isn't anyone crying about the elven ranger/rogue dual wielding two finessed shortswords with free feats, getting sneak attack on every attack?

Remember that the damage bonus from weapon specialization only applies within 30' (ditto for PBS, of course).

I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken except when taken to extremes -- and everything in D&D eventually breaks when taken to extremes.


----------



## Moleculo (Dec 3, 2002)

For the post above comparing the melee with ranged fighters, you can't keen a bow, because only slashing weapons may be keened.

Also, i dont really see the GMW coming into play with Buddha's party since he hasnt mentioned the presnece of any magic users in his party. (not to say that GMW isnt potentially unbalancing) I like the idea of splitting the bonuses though, between arrows for damage and bows for attack bonus. The only problem is that might nerf the bow a little too much, in the case that one isnt using a magic bow or arrow in conjunction. 

jake


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 3, 2002)

Oh, another thought.  If you insist on splitting the attack/damage bonuses from the bow and arrow, I'd do it the other way around: attack bonus to the arrow, damage bonus to the bow.

Reasoning (acknowledged: shaky ground due to applying anything real-world to D&D) -- quality of arrows affects the accuracy of archery far more than the quality of a bow.  With the same bow, going to a higher quality (higher +) arrow won't change penetration (damage) much, but will improve accuracy.  Likewise, going to a better quality bow with the same arrow is likely to increase the energy the arrow retains, which more readily translates to more penetration (damage) than more accuracy.

'Course there's the whole accuracy vs. penetration thing to consider for damage, too, so -

YMMV.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 3, 2002)

Moleculo said:
			
		

> *For the post above comparing the melee with ranged fighters, you can't keen a bow, because only slashing weapons may be keened.
> 
> jake *




They errata'd this. Arrows can be Keen now.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 3, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> If you change the Rapid Shot penalty to -5, are you going to do the same thing for ambidexterity/TWF?  Spending two feats to get one extra attack per round is the same for archers and two-weapon fighters (PBS/RS nets -2/-2; Amb/TWF nets -2/-2).
> *



Just in case anyone is folled by this argument...

Changing Rs to -5 and adding IRS (ugh) for -2 is precisely to make it like TWF/AMBI. TWF or ambi alone is very close to a -5, tho it varies iirc by weapons chosen so it might vary between -4 and -6 or some such. It takes two feats which do nothing else but give you the extra attack option to get to -2.

You cannot toss in the prerequisite PBS and pretend that it counts because it actually does something worthwhile... it provides its own +1/+1 to the mix that stacks with focus and spec.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken except when taken to extremes -- and everything in D&D eventually breaks when taken to extremes. *




Since i do not consider fighters spending feats on combat abilites extreme and since i dont consider PCs using GMW extreme considering its on wizards, sorcerers, and clerics lists... I do not consider any of this taken to the extreme. This is what a sensible party would be doing, using the abilities they have. Any fighter can have practically everything listed by 12th level, slightly beyond mid-level. Thats not extreme at all.

if you consider archery, taking feats in archery, taking less than half your feats in archery, or using 3rd level spells, or later 7th level spells and feats sagaciously to all be extreme, then i can see your point.


----------



## Endur (Dec 3, 2002)

You have it backwards.  Melee is for the stars of the game.  Archers is for the backups in the game.

Assume average party level is X.  4 characters are level X, one is X+1, one is X-1.

The X-1 character should be in back firing missile weapons.  The X+1 character should be out front in toe to toe melee with the enemy.  All other things the same, the X+1 character has the best chance to survive the Terrible Monsters.  

After all, melee is where you risk life and limb.




			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My experience in 3e is that archers are easier to powergame, take less damage, dish out more damage, and then have little to no weakness that the melee type doesn't.  Melee is the place for hirelings and archery is for PCs, and I like playing melee characters. *


----------



## Unseelie (Dec 3, 2002)

Endur said:
			
		

> *You have it backwards.  Melee is for the stars of the game.  Archers is for the backups in the game.*




I prefer the ensemble(sp?) cast concept... all of the PCs are stars in their own right. They all get their screen time. They all get to shine.

Think _Kelly's Heroes_ or _Ocean's Eleven_.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 3, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Changing Rs to -5 and adding IRS (ugh) for -2 is precisely to make it like TWF/AMBI. TWF or ambi alone is very close to a -5, tho it varies iirc by weapons chosen so it might vary between -4 and -6 or some such. It takes two feats which do nothing else but give you the extra attack option to get to -2.
> 
> You cannot toss in the prerequisite PBS and pretend that it counts because it actually does something worthwhile... it provides its own +1/+1 to the mix that stacks with focus and spec.*




My point is you still have to spend two feats, not one, to get to -2/-2.  Amb does reduce the penalities to TWF -- and you can still get an extra attack without spending ANY feats (albeit at a large penalty) which is impossible to do with a bow.

Yes -- PBS provides a benefit, but only within 30', so it isn't applicable all the time. In most of the examples given in this thread, the archer is at greater than 30' range, so all PBS does is effectively act as a qualifying feat for another feat.  I'd argue that when an archer is within PBS range, he's probably going to be in melee within one round.



> *
> if you consider archery, taking feats in archery, taking less than half your feats in archery, or using 3rd level spells, or later 7th level spells and feats sagaciously to all be extreme, then i can see your point. *




Perhaps extreme is a poor choice of words.  I'm trying to say that comparing a high level melee specialist to a high level archer is comparing apples to oranges -- too many other things factor in for a realistic mathematical comparison.  At mid range, most melee fighters can benefit from a few archery feats, and vice versa, and things tend to balance out.


----------



## Fisk (Dec 3, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> [B
> 
> A +1 KEEN flaming burst bow costs just as much as the same Axe. (give or take the pocketchage for the mighty+4 etc.)
> 
> ...





Apparently you have different DM's Guide than I do.

Mine says on pg 187     _Keen: This enchantment......  Only slashing weapons can be echanted to be keen._

So...  apparently you have house ruled that   Peircing weapons like a Raprier  can be enchanted...   And that a bow can bestow the keen properties  onto a "piercing" projectile.

Thus we now can now all enjoy the slippery slope and just make up any rules and magic items we want.   

It seems like this topic would be best brought up under HOUSE RULES since most peoples solutions to this issue seem to be some rule that they made up.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Dec 3, 2002)

It is no house rule. Straight from the SRD:

Keen Edge
Transmutation
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One weapon or fifty projectiles, all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
This spell makes a weapon magically keen, improving its ability to deal telling blows. This transmutation doubles the threat range of the weapon. A normal threat range becomes 19–20. A threat range of 19–20 becomes 17–20. A threat range of 18–20 becomes 15–20. The spell can be cast only on piercing or slashing weapons (and it does not stack with itself). If cast on arrows or crossbow bolts, the keen edge on a particular projectile ends after one use, whether or not the missile strikes its intended target.

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/srdspellsjkl.rtf


----------



## Mulkhoran (Dec 3, 2002)

Fisk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Apparently you have different DM's Guide than I do.
> ...






Unless, of course, they've errata'd the DMG, and changed that EXACT line to say that slashing AND piercing weapons can be made keen.

Oh look, they did.


----------



## HeavyG (Dec 3, 2002)

Fisk said:
			
		

> Apparently you have different DM's Guide than I do.




Apparently, yes.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Dec 3, 2002)

They errata'd Keen to work on piercing weapons.  That's official.
Last I checked, they did NOT errata it to allow bows to bestow it on their ammunition.  The DMG enchantments that allow a bow to pass the effect to its ammunition are explicitly stated as such.  That line wasn't added to Keen, and it isn't stated in the Keen Edge spell (which refers to enchanting the ammunition directly, not the bow).

So, you can make a batch of Keen Arrows, but not a Keen Bow, since a bow isn't a piercing weapon.  This, in my experience, tends to keep it from being used too often.  Now, some people claim that it DOES bestow the effect on projectiles, but I'd call that a house rule.


----------



## Fisk (Dec 3, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *They errata'd Keen to work on piercing weapons.  That's official.
> Last I checked, they did NOT errata it to allow bows to bestow it on their ammunition.  The DMG enchantments that allow a bow to pass the effect to its ammunition are explicitly stated as such.  That line wasn't added to Keen, and it isn't stated in the Keen Edge spell (which refers to enchanting the ammunition directly, not the bow).
> 
> So, you can make a batch of Keen Arrows, but not a Keen Bow, since a bow isn't a piercing weapon.  This, in my experience, tends to keep it from being used too often.  Now, some people claim that it DOES bestow the effect on projectiles, but I'd call that a house rule. *





Great I didn't see  the errata'd  version....  

So good now you can have KEEN'd arrows.  NOT a Keened bow but KEEN'd arrows.

So if you have some chap who wants to spend  8,000gp for 50 +1 keened arrows fine by me.  Thats expensive  for mere 5% increase in crit threat range.

Next  issue is the spell.  If the parties  Magic user wants to drop a 3rd level spell  to give some archer  a mere 5% increase in the crit threat range fine.  It will only last 10min/level....  no big deal.

Expense vs. 5%   or   3rd level spell (ie fire ball) for limited 5%..     Its all in balance.

Now the other option would be to buy a scroll with the spell on it  but thats still  375 gp   for a limited time  5% increase.  Then you could either use enchanted +1 arrows for total price of 2375 gp.  or Master work arrows  for a total of  389.5 gp.  (assumming you shot all 50 arrows before the spell expired....   if not simply add another  375 to our total....

What other mole hills are there that we can make  mountains out of.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 3, 2002)

"My point is you still have to spend two feats, not one, to get to -2/-2. Amb does reduce the penalities to TWF -- and you can still get an extra attack without spending ANY feats (albeit at a large penalty) which is impossible to do with a bow."

Ok surely you realize this paragraph makes your position sound even more unreasonable?

For MELEE, you spend two feats to go from "can make one extra attack with very high penalty" to "can make one extra attack with -2 penalties."

For missiles you spend ONE feat to go from "cannot make the one additional attack at all, no way, no how" to "can make one extra attack with -2 penalties"

Surely you see that the little point about not having an attack option at all shows RS to be even better, not closer.

Anyway, you can keep trying to argue how PBS counts as a second feat but what we have here is quite simple...

For MELEE, two feats each reduce the penalties for the extra attack and thats all they do. 

For bows only one feat reduces the penalties all the way down to -2 and it enables the extra attack to boot all on its own. A second feat prereq provides a completely different benefit. 

If thats fine for you and seems Ok and as far as you are concerned the PBS is as transparent as the second lost feat for melle, thats cool. 

i just do not happen to share that belief. 

Maybe others will see it your way.


----------



## Lela (Dec 3, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If thats fine for you and seems Ok and as far as you are concerned the PBS is as transparent as the second lost feat for melle, thats cool.
> 
> ...




The Archer in my game loves PBS, especally when combined with Precise Shot.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 4, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *For MELEE, two feats each reduce the penalties for the extra attack and thats all they do.
> 
> For bows only one feat reduces the penalties all the way down to -2 and it enables the extra attack to boot all on its own. A second feat prereq provides a completely different benefit.
> 
> *




I'm a plain-Jane, vanilla level 1 Fighter.  I want two attacks per round.  I want all the benefits of my feats to be applicable every time I attack.  How many feats must I spend?

TWF: Two feats.  Benefits applicable every time I make a full attack.  If I use two identical weapons, the benefits of later weapon focus and specialization apply to both, on all attacks.

Archery: Two feats.  Benefits of both applicable only if I am within 30' and make a full attack.  Future benefits of weapon focus and specialization apply to all attacks, but specialization only applies within 30'.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we, or else I'll be tempted to drag rangers and free Amb/TWF into it.


----------



## Lela (Dec 4, 2002)

So, in the end, we've come down to the fact that if someone wants to munchkin the rules, they will find a way.

Isn't it interesting how we've decided that it's okay for munchkins to do what they want because it's how they like to play?

Now we just blame the rules that they can abuse.

I think we were right the first time and wrong the second time.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 4, 2002)

This thread stinks 

Some points:

 Yes, archers do have to count arrows. And no, my players don't go shopping after every encounter to replenish their resources.
 Calculate it like you want, archers are balanced. If you complain that an archer with Strength 18 is unbalanced, you are usually in a point buy range where the whole game starts to be unbalanced since some classes benefit more from several high stats than others.
 Archers in 30ft range to the enemies who shoot for more than one round are dead meat.
 TWF and Ambidex are worse than archery feats. That's right. But it's not a reason to downgrade archery since you still gotta compare it to twohanded greatsword twinks with Power Attack and Cleave.
 Why does noone complain about mounted archers?


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, archers do have to count arrows. And no, my players don't go shopping after every encounter to replenish their resources.*




In the high-level campaign where I'm playing an archer, the wizard has ~400 arrows stored in sacks inside a portable hole. Half the party has bags of holding. I have a quiver of Ehlonna. Ammo generally isn't a problem.



> *Why does noone complain about mounted archers?
> *




Because at the levels where it matters, the horse usually dies in one round from one hit. After that, you're back to a regular archer.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> I'm a plain-Jane, vanilla level 1 Fighter.  I want two attacks per round.  I want all the benefits of my feats to be applicable every time I attack.  How many feats must I spend?
> *



None, not any at all. The penalties are severe, but not one feat is necessary.

For the archer, the second shot is IMPOSSIBLE without the additional feats.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> TWF: Two feats.  Benefits applicable every time I make a full attack.  If I use two identical weapons, the benefits of later weapon focus and specialization apply to both, on all attacks.
> *



And after those two feats you have an extra attack at -2 and the possibility (if using identical light weapons of have foc/spec add +1/+2.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> Archery: Two feats.  Benefits of both applicable only if I am within 30' and make a full attack.  Future benefits of weapon focus and specialization apply to all attacks, but specialization only applies within 30'.
> *



And the net effect is obne extra attack, -2 penalties, and within 30' a +1/+1. this raises to +2/+3.

To me, the fact that for two feats the archer gains the ability to make the extra attack at all, penalties of -2, and an additional +1/+1 is important and significant. They are not to be ignored so that we pretend he gains the same thing for two feats as the AMBI/TWF guy does.

YMMV and obviously does.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> Let's agree to disagree, shall we, or else I'll be tempted to drag rangers and free Amb/TWF into it.
> *




If you want to drag class abilities into it, thats cool but it wont affect the comparison at all. No matter how you slice it, a flat out beneficial feat, giving +1/+1 within 30' is not at all gonna balance out taking two feats for the effect of one. Maybe in your game the +1/+1 for PBS is worthless enough that it doesn't matter at all. thats fine.

I think in many games, and i know in mine, +1/+1 within 30' is considered very worthwhile.

Matter of fact, i have even heard of campaigns, as strange as this may sound to you, where people spend TWO feats to get a net +1/+2 with weapons that only works within 5', like say someone who takes focus and spec on their greatsword. If you cannot fathom +1/+1 within 30' counting as beneficial or worth a feat on its own, i shudder to think of what you appraise focus and spec at for a melee weapon.

Me, i see it much more simply...

It takes two feats to go from "extra mnelle attack with extreme penalties" to "extra melee attack with -2 penalties" with everything else staying the same and no additional benefits.

It should take at least two feats to go from "NO extra ranged attack at all, period" to "one extra ranged attack with -2 penalties" and no other changes whatsoever.

Thats not how the rules currently stand and from my experience that is a significant part of the imbalance or "archery edge" i have seen in play.

It really seems quite simple. 

enjoy your games.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Dec 4, 2002)

Fisk said:
			
		

> * If the parties  Magic user wants to drop a 3rd level spell  to give some archer  a mere 5% increase in the crit threat range fine.  It will only last 10min/level....  no big deal.
> *




If your weapon has a base threat range of either 19-20/x2 or 20/x3, Keen Edge adds 10% to your average damage over time.  Take a look at the amount of damage people are talking about doing per turn with archers.  10% of 50 points is nothing to sneeze at.
Would a caster want to lose a 3rd-level spell for that?  Depends on the caster.  Those who like pure offensive spells would rather throw a Fireball, but people who like buffing might use it; it's increased party damage with no AoE worry, no saves, and no needing to make ranged touch attacks with a caster's lousy BAB.  The problem is, it's one of those spells you cast only on other people, and it happens to be at the same level as Haste and GMW, so it gets overshadowed in the buff department.
I've always thought Keen Edge should have been a second-level spell.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Lela said:
			
		

> *
> So, in the end, we've come down to the fact that if someone wants to munchkin the rules, they will find a way.
> *



Actually i thought the rules were about non-munchkin things.

A fighter spending his feats on PHB fighter feats does not seem munchkin to me. Isn't that what he is supposed to do with those feats? 

A mage or cleric using PHB spells for precisely what they were meant for with not one single "GM has to make a ruling on ambiguous" or house rule needed does not seem munchkin to me. (For instance, he is not trying to finagle fireball into destroying enemy spell pouches or anything, he is simply using the GMW spell for the ONLY THING IT CAN DO... provide enhancements to weapons.)

Neither of these seem munchkin to me.

Where is the munchkin part?



			
				Lela said:
			
		

> *
> Isn't it interesting how we've decided that it's okay for munchkins to do what they want because it's how they like to play?
> 
> Now we just blame the rules that they can abuse.
> *




Does munchkin mean "find imbalance in the rules" so that if wotc published a 1st level spell which did 30d6 of damage to "targets in a 30' radius with no save we should call the players who use it names instead of fixing the nroken spell?

I would much rather have rules that work than to have rules that dont work and tell my players to not use them or i will call them names.

Wouldn't you?


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> This thread stinks
> *



WOW!! How utterly brilliant. I had not considered that. Thank you for your insights. 


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> [*] Yes, archers do have to count arrows. And no, my players don't go shopping after every encounter to replenish their resources.
> *



At standard wealth levels and availability, by low/mid level in DND 3e (say 8th) arrows and bags of holding, haversacks and the like are well within the bounds of easily accessible equipment. If your game uses customized rules to handle supply, encumbrance and availability, then it is indeed possible that those house rules have served to bring archery further into balance.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> [*] Calculate it like you want, archers are balanced.
> *



Ahhh... so whether the math is right, the examples dead on or the experience in play is accurate, we should all know and accept BY FAITH that what we see and figure and can demonstrate is false.

Again... quite convincing. i find myself often much more swayed by "it is so!!!" than by pesky little things like examples, actual figures and experience.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> If you complain that an archer with Strength 18 is unbalanced, you are usually in a point buy range where the whole game starts to be unbalanced since some classes benefit more from several high stats than others.
> *



Actually, again realizing that wealth and equipment is part of balance, looking at iconic characters provided by wotc and used in their playtest of the rules, we can see that an 18 in a secondary stat is not at all in some sort of oversized point buy. By mid levels the notion of a high dex and 18 strength is no more out of whack than it is for a high strength and 18 con fighter.

For example... at as simple as a 28 point buy, stats of 16 14 14 10 10 10 is just fine. By 10th level, the iconic example characters all have (IIRC) +4 booster items for one stat. That means, with the two bonuses for 4th and 8th, these numbers could be 18 18 14 10 10 10. Now, depending on the fighter and his design, the 18 18 14 set is arranged to favor dex/str, str/con or even dex/com if he wants.

I think 28 is considered a fairly common or even low point buy, not some sort of out of whack overly high game balance cracking one.

Perhaps, due to your own campaign house rules, the notion of a character at 12th level having a secondary 18 is indeed way out of bounds. perhaps those house rules have helped to bring archery further into balance. 


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> [*] Archers in 30ft range to the enemies who shoot for more than one round are dead meat.
> *



Ok, presumably this is because of the fact that they get attacked and killed.

Well, surprisingly, most every melee fighter makes his attacks within 5', not 30, but they are not dead meat. 

I find it quizzical that melee fighters whose range is limited to 5' are considered viable but archers whose attacks are done at 30' are considered dead meat. Oh well. 

In my experience, when you rush an archer you are fighting a guy who is just about as tough as that melee fighter. A little Ac difference , MAYBE, for the shield. If he cannot do the 5' step tango, he switches to his secondary weapon. Same as a melee fighter would switch to his bow if he could not get within range. Neither is "dead meat" in their secondary idiom.

i guess your archers are different than mine.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> [*] TWF and Ambidex are worse than archery feats. That's right. But it's not a reason to downgrade archery since you still gotta compare it to twohanded greatsword twinks with Power Attack and Cleave.
> *



Actually it is a reason to COMPARE the two. unfortunately my numbers and experience shows that the archery produces a significant edge. 

I typically see cleave and great cleve give my dwarven tank monster one extra swing per fight. Some fights he gets more. Some fights none at all. he typically moves to enable it to occur, keeping two enemies within 5'. The problems are that the enemies do not always stand there for him to do that, the enemies are sometimes killed by other people, and things like that. We have seen the fairly dramatic "Dain wiped out four guys in one round" thing, but very very rarely. 

Like i said, about 1 extra swing per fight.

that doesn't compare to +4 per shot.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> [*] Why does noone complain about mounted archers?
> [/list]
> *




Well from my experience mouhnted combat appears rarely. horses are too fragile, the need for space for things like charges and the like limits the opportunities, and horses do not move well into many of the settings where combat often takes place in DND like INNS castles and dungeons.

Perhaps your games highlight this more?

If i had a PC who was designed for mounted combat, who spent the feats for it, i would try and make it more prevalent, of course.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 4, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *WOW!! How utterly brilliant. I had not considered that. Thank you for your insights.*




No thanks, required, it was a pleasure. Why did I say this? Cause I read too many threads yet that whine that archers are too weak. 



> *At standard wealth levels and availability, by low/mid level in DND 3e (say 8th) arrows and bags of holding, haversacks and the like ... house rules have served to bring archery further into balance.*




Sadly the GM hands out items in my games... usually me. That means: No houserules needed. The PCs just don't go shopping for magic.



> *Ahhh... so whether the math is right, the examples dead on or the experience in play is accurate, we should all know and accept BY FAITH that what we see and figure and can demonstrate is false.*




Funny. Someone on the earlier pages showed that a twohanded weapon barbarian/fighter twink is still more likely to dish out more damage. Where are the numbers now?



> *Again... quite convincing. i find myself often much more swayed by "it is so!!!" than by pesky little things like examples, actual figures and experience.*




Hehehe. Funny. I could have bet someone would take me real serious and try to argue. Let's go!
Once again: I think this thread is silly. I (now) gave a reason for this to explain it to someone who didn't see this by himself. But I do like arguing 



> *Actually, again realizing that wealth and equipment is part of balance... By mid levels the notion of a high dex and 18 strength is no more out of whack than it is for a high strength and 18 con fighter.*




Your point buy examples only show that this archer will not hit better than a fighter who puts all into higher and higher strength. Which screws your other examples 



> *Perhaps, due to your own campaign house rules, the notion of a character at 12th level having a secondary 18 is indeed way out of bounds. perhaps those house rules have helped to bring archery further into balance.*




Did I mention houserules? Don't think so. Skip those arguments, they are worthless in this little funny fight of words. You can do better, show me 
As said above, a secondary 18 only means usually that the main stat is not as high as it could be.



> *Ok, presumably this is because of the fact that they get attacked and killed.
> Well, surprisingly, most every melee fighter makes his attacks within 5', not 30, but they are not dead meat.*




I don't think it's necessary, but I can happily show you some others threads about how to screw archers who fight in close quarters if you insist.  *LOL*



> *I find it quizzical that melee fighters whose range is limited to 5' are considered viable but archers whose attacks are done at 30' are considered dead meat. Oh well. *




Boy, now this is gonna be fun... you play into my hands with this kind of sentences. Shall I give you the answer why you could possibly find this quizzically ?
Honest answer: Other threads.



> *In my experience, when you rush an archer ... Neither is "dead meat" in their secondary idiom.*




Sorry, you can read about other experiences here.



> *i guess your archers are different than mine.*




Now that may be the first nice words you say. Thanks 
Now on to mounted archers.



> *Well from my experience mouhnted combat appears rarely. horses are too fragile... in DND like INNS castles and dungeons.*




Do I play Diablo2 dungeoncrawling with tailored encounters that bore my players to death? No. But this only leads to another thread about "Do you customize your encounters or build the world without tailoring the encounters to your heros?" Sorry, I try to make my world alive by avoiding such things. Now you can chime in with houserules and campaign rules. But if my non existant problems with archers root in my way to play with core rules, why would I complain?

Horses too fragile? If you get stronger, get better mounts. Never rode a dragon? Or anything else? All those guys here speak about magical treasures like Elminster but every mount is a simple horse. Funny


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

Oh well, and here i had hoped for an actual attempt at a discussion. my bad.

Of the few points worth mentioning...

In about every game i know the Gm gives out magic items. in some game, the Gm also decides to cut back, reduce or eliminate the access to magic items thru other means. All of these are fine, but...

In DND 3e, wealth is considered a part of balance and that includes access to magic items. items under 3k are noted as commonly available and the purchase rules establish clear guidelines for the purchase of items and magic. Whiule a GM is certainly within his rights to change this, that house rule will have impact on balances. he shoudl, perhaps if he wants to be taken seriously, keep that in mind in online rules discussion.

In this case,  it would be a simple matter for a Gm to move archery closer to balance by controlling access to magic items, scrolls for spellboooks and such. More frequent and better melee weapon treasures, little access to sources of GMW, greater frequency of strength boosting as opposed to dex boosting, and so on could all shift the balance in play into line. item creation and the two free spells per level would be about the only real obstacles remaining.

The examples of secondary 18s was solely to refute the nonsense about this meaning it was some high powered point buy. For cases of max strength etc, see the above posts. With max strength vs max dex you do not end up with higher expected damage for the melee guy once you include the double stack of GMW. Your end up with more PER HIT but with a +4 (in the 15th level examples above) difference in hits as well as an extra attack per round, the expected damage goes to the archer easily since against low Ac opponets the extra swing is one more hit and at high ac opponents the +4 per hit is just slam on.

As for this nonsense...

"Do I play Diablo2 dungeoncrawling with tailored encounters that bore my players to death?" No. But this only leads to another thread about "Do you customize your encounters or build the world without tailoring the encounters to your heros?" Sorry, I try to make my world alive by avoiding such things."

I have no idea where diablo fits in, but as far as i can tell, whether a world is alive or bores its players has very little to do with dungeons, castles, inns or woods or roads or brothels or whatever. It has to do with the ideas and creativity and such put into and gotten out of. if somehow you feel that mounted combat makes a game more alive than combat in a castle, thats fine, but i for one see no correlation. I think poorly done, repetitive combats would be just as boring on a horsey in a field as it would be in an inn or in a castle. YMMV and clearly does.

But, for all the "i am right and i dont have to show how" stuff... again, i say thats one powerful argument you have there.

"Horses too fragile? If you get stronger, get better mounts. Never rode a dragon. "

I do not typically use dragons in my game world to serve as simple steeds. i do have one dragon-ruled kingdom that the players interact with so far. They have seen, and engaged alongside, some of its mixed forces, where dragons do fly troops into a fight. however, they typically drop the soldiers off and then the dragons engage in battle using their own abilities, flight, breath weapons, and spells while the soldiers engage in the meaner work. Since there are relatively few dragons compared to the men, the dragons dont normally try to work in tandem with a mpounted melee guy who will be drawing him into close combat. Eahc plays to their strengths. Also, for these cases, the dragonm is considered the guy in charge and the men the subordinates, at least, thats how the dragons see it anyway.

But that is just how my world represents them. i use dragons as near divine class beings whose origins and nature tie in with creation. Dragons rarely are served up as "monster of the week" but are major players. 

I figure this is different in your world. i am sure i have even seen fiction where dragons were not the great beasts, but just saddled underlings, more than once. Thats just not the representation of dragons i prefer. YMMV and clearly does.

So perhaps, attitude not withstanding, your "humor" or derision could do with a notion of considering different game styles a little.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 4, 2002)

Endur said:
			
		

> *You have it backwards.  Melee is for the stars of the game.  Archers is for the backups in the game.
> 
> Assume average party level is X.  4 characters are level X, one is X+1, one is X-1.
> 
> ...




What?  If a character wants to be effective, they had better get good at what they do.  In my experience, if a character starts as an archer, they stay that way.  Likewise with melee.  If a character is lower then the rest of the party and take PBS, RS, and precise shot they are not going to go into melee if they make it to higher level than the other characters, they are going to stick with archery, because it got them up that far.

Why would any one want to risk life and limb?  Most people throw out noble-stupid combat tatics after a death or three.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 4, 2002)

Still trying to have a reasonable discussion here folks, let's settle down ...



			
				Petrosian said:
			
		

> *For the archer, the second shot is IMPOSSIBLE without the additional feats.*




This is part of my point, that this is one of the balancing effects.



> *
> And after those two feats you have an extra attack at -2 and the possibility (if using identical light weapons of have foc/spec add +1/+2.
> 
> And the net effect is obne extra attack, -2 penalties, and within 30' a +1/+1. this raises to +2/+3.
> ...




I agree with you that the archer is slightly better than the TWF, the point I'm trying to make is the reason for the imbalance is NOT Rapid Shot, or Point Blank Shot, or the combination.

The TWF has Amb/TWF/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at -1/+2 (ignoring stats, magic, etc).

The archer has PBS/RS/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at +0/+2 within 30', and at -1/+0 outside of 30'.

Now, in my experience (I'm sure yours is different), the mix of engagements at <30' and >30' is about 50/50 (and is almost entirely under the control of the DM).  I've found that at close ranges, the influence of firing into melee (unless Precise shot is taken, spending a 3rd feat), plus the influences of cover (which is almost always a factor at close range and isn't mitigated by any feat.

In my opinion, balanced does not necessarily mean equal modifiers.  I (obviously) feel the system is balanced, as:

For a second archery attack, PBS+RS does not always apply, cand can suffer from cover and firing into melee when it does, whereas

The second melee attack from AMB+TWF is a benefit that can be obtained, albeit at greater penalties, by spending zero, one, or two feats.

If you attempt to redress the perceived archer-melee fighter imbalance by changing Rapid Shot, I think you swing the balance too far the other way.

And then, will you add another feat to allow an archer an additional attack at -5, to balance with Improved Two Weapon Fighting?

I think the system's fine as is, though I appreciate Petrosian's viewpoint.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 4, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *This thread stinks
> 
> Some points:
> 
> ...




Forcing archers to count amzingly cheap items they can carry large numbers of is not all that interesting and tends to take away from the game play in the tedium.


Apparently, since there are examples of damage on both sides of this disscussion, it isn't obvious.


Where are these threads you mention?  I have only seen one, on sundering bows and I consider the tatic somewhat suspect.  First, you have to be able to harm the weapon, with a weapon of similar enhancement.  As mentioned, those capable fighters are usually busy elsewhere with the PC prerequisite meat shields.  Now there is the question of getting to archer.  Suck some AoOs just to get to a person to use a tatic that might not work, with all the GMW going.  Now, I wonder if this enemy is just doing this because the GM wants to stop the archer if character would think it is a good idea.  Since other have noted sunder monkey's don't seem too effective, it looks like the former.

I want to know why you think archers are so doomed at close range.  I have not seen it.


TWF and rapid fire are directly comparable.  Archery comes out ahead, by your own words, but this just means that TWF sucks.  Since it is possible to build what you might call a better damage machine, it can't be that archery is good.  That seems a narrow view.  

Even when your greatsword/power attacking twink is dealing out more per hit, he has to close, suffering AoOs from reach monsters along with nasty melee actions like trip/improved grab/ect.  Meanwhile the archer is still getting consistant damage and not being hit.  The number of hits you can always get and the movement you don't have to take means the archer's total damage reaches higher, expecially with things like stacking GWM.


I have never seen any one use it.  Mounted doesn't work inside of any sort of structure, where a lot of action happens.  If half your fights are bar/inn/castle/dungeon, then a nice bonus when you can get it is fine by me.

As for your "improved mount" argument elsewhere, I think you are a little far streched.  Read the mounted example fight in the back of sword and fist.  The paladin has his mount, but the ranger has a fiendish war horse.  It dies in few hits, and that was only one mounted opponent.  There is your valted improved mount.

As for this thread stinking, I think you are smelling your own arguments


----------



## Darklone (Dec 4, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Oh well, and here i had hoped for an actual attempt at a discussion. my bad.
> ...
> I figure this is different in your world. i am sure i have even seen fiction where dragons were not the great beasts, but just saddled underlings, more than once. Thats just not the representation of dragons i prefer. YMMV and clearly does.
> 
> So perhaps, attitude not withstanding, your "humor" or derision could do with a notion of considering different game styles a little. *




Fascinating. You really took that "ride a dragon" advice serious, didn't you? Well, that says it all.

For you: If you read it closely, this was an exaggeration of your mentality in previous posts to graciously explain me how high level games work. *dripping sarcasm for those who need this written*

About the archers balance. Olgar gave some nice examples. Add in +4 cover in combat (that is not nullified by precise shot) if your enemy keeps the melee fighters between you and the archers as anyone should do... and you end up with less damage statistically.

Just give me one example how an archer of any level does more damage than the melee fighter and you could as well build a melee fighter who does the same. Add Prestige classes into the fray and things get out of hand. But I haven't seen an archer smackdown so far that was sooo much better than the melee smackdowns. 

You wrote that it depends on the DM if I balance things against the archers. Ever asked yourself if the DM in your examples perhaps plays the game in a way that prefers archers?

Hey guys, what about a nice little poll if archers are unbalanced ?


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *]
> 
> Now, in my experience (I'm sure yours is different), the mix of engagements at <30' and >30' is about 50/50 (and is almost entirely under the control of the DM).  I've found that at close ranges, the influence of firing into melee (unless Precise shot is taken, spending a 3rd feat), plus the influences of cover (which is almost always a factor at close range and isn't mitigated by any feat.
> *




I will give you that the archer loses some of his benefits outside 30' but i will suggest to you that the melee fighter is WORSE off at those ranges. 

Inside of 30', the archer has better bonuses from the feats due to PBS. Outside of 30' the archer can still shoot while the melee fighter cannot.

I fail to see where either of these amounts to a downside for the archer.

If the fighter can get in to swing, i can get within 30'.

COVER... looking at my 15th level example, the numbers gave the archer a +4 net with one extra swing vs the THF guy. Knock off 4 for cover, which ASSUMES medium vs medium, and iirc i mentioned this in my example, and the to hits crawl back to even. So the net result is the archer gets one more attack at his highest BAB than the corresponding THF.

Now if instead you want a TWF, then after feats he gets an even number of swings but is at -2 compared to the archer who is firing across medium vs medium cover.

If the shot is across medium vs large or medium vs huge (like say Pcs vs giants or trolls or glabrezus) then this cover bonus is lowere than 4.

I will leave it to you to decide how many mid-high level enemies are smaller than the PCs to offset this.



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *]
> In my opinion, balanced does not necessarily mean equal modifiers.  I (obviously) feel the system is balanced, as:
> 
> For a second archery attack, PBS+RS does not always apply, cand can suffer from cover and firing into melee when it does, whereas
> ...



This makes no sense to me. as i see going from NO SHOT to SHOT as better than going from BAD SHOT to SHOT, not worse.



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *]
> If you attempt to redress the perceived archer-melee fighter imbalance by changing Rapid Shot, I think you swing the balance too far the other way.
> *



Understood. We disagree and thats fine. I would rather have seen some numbers to show why, but experience and guesswork is good to.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *]
> And then, will you add another feat to allow an archer an additional attack at -5, to balance with Improved Two Weapon Fighting?
> *



Since i am not really all that concerned about arhcery vs TWF, since TWF seems to be fairly weak, but more concerned wioth archery vs normal melee, as you will see my examples dealth with THF, i am not all that concerned with TWF after 3-5 feats. No one in my group stuck with TWF because the anti-synergy of lower Ac, need for melee, AND the weaker to hits seemed egregious. With arhcery avoiding the need for melee range (thus more full attacks) and the worse to hit (with the double benefit from enahncements) the appeal for archery has not waned. matter of fact, now that the sor is reliably providing +4 arrows and bows for them, and in light of seeing +5 weapons and bows and arrows in just a couple levels for EVERYONE all the time (Chain Extended GMW at 15th) i am looking at a dwarven tank, a barbarian, a ranger and a rogue all looking into figuring out how to keep firing arrows as long as possible before getting FORCED into melee. +10 enhancement to damage AND hit is too much to pass up. With -2 for an extra shot, neither the rogue nor the range ever fires without rapid shot, except for standard attacks. (By comparison, i have seen many a TWF guy chose to only use one attack, for instance when the enemy had above average AC.)


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *]
> 
> I think the system's fine as is, though I appreciate Petrosian's viewpoint. *




I can understand yours as well, tho some parts of it seem a perfect disconnect to me.

I will observe again, that i do not think any one element is grossly out of whack nor do i feel that this creates a case of overwhelming imbalance. i think it is far enough out of whack that when they get the option players will almost universally choose to use GMW, PBS, RS and archery over melee except for character personality based decisions. The results are simply better. the second stacking feat (PBS stacking with foc/spec), the double efficiency of RS, and the double enhancement effects from GMW to me all combine to create the imbalance. cutting the GMW bonuses in half (by making bow to hit and arrow damage) and splitting the double feat for RS up seems like it would bring them down to tough choices.

thank you, however, for a lively debate.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 4, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> * thank you, however, for a lively debate. *




Likewise!

You could always run a comparison with your RS+IRS proposal in House Rules and see how it works out.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 4, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Fascinating. You really took that "ride a dragon" advice serious, didn't you? Well, that says it all.
> *



Yes. it says i am willing to treat even those type of comments as if i thought they had some merit, as opposed to just insulting the poster for making such.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For you: If you read it closely, this was an exaggeration of your mentality in previous posts to graciously explain me how high level games work. *dripping sarcasm for those who need this written*
> *



Wow! Really? Nah! 

So, other than storking your own bitterness, is there any point to your attacks?


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> About the archers balance. Olgar gave some nice examples. Add in +4 cover in combat (that is not nullified by precise shot) if your enemy keeps the melee fighters between you and the archers as anyone should do... and you end up with less damage statistically.
> *



Even in the 15th level example i posted above, the net difference was +4. For the cases where you cannot avoid the straight thru cover AND where the target is not larger than the intervening PC, then the +4 brings them back to even to-hits except for the archer getting an extra Swing at his highest BAB. if you go with TWF, you get another -2 against the fighter AND lower strength bonus on most swings.

i do not think your "statictically" means what you think it means.

In truth tho, the value of +4 damage per attack that hits" vs "one extra attack" is very dependent on the Ac vs to hit difficulty. However, since the extra attack is at the highest BAB and the experience i have shows that is the most likely to hit, I still come out ahead for archers.

If you also factor in the "ranged means easier to get full attack" so that you expect that the archer will get say 2 rounds per fight where he uses full attack to the melee fighter's standardb attack, then it should become a no brainer.



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just give me one example how an archer of any level does more damage than the melee fighter and you could as well build a melee fighter who does the same.
> *



That is a nice claim. A wonderful theory. however, what we keep seeing is you making claims and then saying everyone else has proved it.

This means that, your claim is worth exactly the paper it is printed on.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> Add Prestige classes into the fray and things get out of hand. But I haven't seen an archer smackdown so far that was sooo much better than the melee smackdowns.
> *



Some people see what they want to see.


			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> You wrote that it depends on the DM if I balance things against the archers. Ever asked yourself if the DM in your examples perhaps plays the game in a way that prefers archers?
> *



Most of my examples are generic, not specific.

For the thoughts about scenario settings, i gave a good couple of posts about that above. The most oft mentioned examples were cover at range so the archers cannot get LOS, obscurations such as fog cloud to prevent LOS, extreme winds and various nondamaging attack options. You can read my full comments above but...

cover at range... the melee fighters will do much worse against ranged opponents than the archers do. (DUH!!) If the archer cannot see neither can anyone else. he is no worse off than the melee guy here. if a melee fighter can get to melee it seems the archer can get to 30' shooting range.

obscuring mists and the like... these do allow the melee fighter to fight with 20% miss and thwart the archer. However at the same time they thwart all the other non-melee characters. The wizard and the rogue are also fairly hosed. So as a scenario balancing tool, this one seems to go out the window. it might be great for propping the melee fighter up, but at the expense of everyone else, not just the archer. this is a baby-with-the-bathwater solution. besides, from my experience, fog clouds do not last long. Someone either dispells it (so their spellcasters can take action) or it is busted as a side effect of some other attack, like fireball. 

Sunder... as effective against many melee weapons and regardless not an option for a great many foes... as your typical dragon bite cannot sunder a +5 bow ever.

Grapple... well grappling seems really good for some monsters and anyone who is good at it probably gets it for free with no AoO, so i dont see how this is significantly worse for the bowman.

etc...

Anyway, responding to your ...ahem..."serious" attempt at making a point has been illuminating but, i think you and i have covered the ground that we can. Thank you for being so informative, if about you if nothing else, and helpful.

enjoy your games.


----------



## officeronin (Dec 4, 2002)

*Not to stir things up...*

In my experience, TWF is underpowered, except for rogues.  Comparing dual short swords to a greatsword, the average damage is identical, and the short swords are 10% less likely to hit, even with 2 weapon fighting and ambidexterity.

So, even if archery is more powerful than TWF, so what?  

Yes, if the encounter distances are long, archery is a good choice, but encounter distances are not that long in the stereotypical dungeon.  Archers don't threaten, so they get sundered or grappled on the enemy's charge.

Finally, since most of these examples are fighters, what is the job of the fighter?  Most of the time, the rogue is doing comparable damage (if not more), so I view the job of the fighter to be holding the line so the wizards and priests can get there spells off and the rogues can manuever to get flanks.  An archer isn't going to be able to do that job.

OfficeRonin


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 5, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> BTW - what house rules were you planning on introducing to nerf archery?
> 
> IceBear *





I'm nerfing GMW. I'm going to make GMW affect * one * weapon, like Magic Weapon. No more enchanting 50 arrows.

Second, in order to not completely castrate archers, I'm making magic arrows come in quivers of 500, not 50. So a stack of 500  arrows +1 would cost 2,000 gps.


This has the effect of making archers less dependent on having a caster constantly present, while also making magical arrows an actual commodity again. 
.
.
.
.
As per the rest of the thread: The math is pretty meaningless. Yes, melee characters do a bit more damage per attack than archers. That is not really the point. My main problems with archers are:


* An archer can do equivalent amounts of damage as melee characters while unmolested by the bad guys, since the melee guys in the party have to maneuver to intercept the enemy, while the archers hang back and full attack/RS every round. *

and

* If, on the off chance an archer is attacked, there is no distinct disadvantage for an archer fighting in melee combat.  *
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW, Power Attack is not that great when you have multiple iterative attacks. IMHO, it's only good during a charge or any other situation when you are forced to take only one attack per round. 

Also, TWF/AMB is good, even for non-Rogue Fighters. I used to think that two handed weapons were far superior, then I took into account the additional bonuses from specialization and magic weapons (and not just the Strength bonus).  This is especially pronounced with Improved and Greater TWF. A Falchion wielder is not as good by the numbers as a TWF Rapier wielder.

(These are both trumped with Multidexterity/Multiweapon Fighting and armor spikes. *grin*)
.
.
.
.
.
*



			Darklone---

Sadly the GM hands out items in my games... usually me. That means: No houserules needed. The PCs just don't go shopping for magic.
		
Click to expand...


*

In the specific game I am in, PCs can buy items and enchant items based on the rules in the DMG. If you aren't using those rules, then your experiences are going to be different than mine. (Since both archers in my game have Bracers of Archery and I doubt that the PCs in your world could be as efficiently equipped.)


----------



## Spatula (Dec 5, 2002)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *I agree with you that the archer is slightly better than the TWF, the point I'm trying to make is the reason for the imbalance is NOT Rapid Shot, or Point Blank Shot, or the combination.
> 
> The TWF has Amb/TWF/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at -1/+2 (ignoring stats, magic, etc).
> 
> The archer has PBS/RS/WF/WS.  He gets two attacks, each at +0/+2 within 30', and at -1/+0 outside of 30'.*




Also: The archer only uses one weapon (and one set of GMW ammo) for all his attacks, including the extra shot, while the TWF needs two different weapons.  That's an extra magic weapon (not cheap) for the TWF.  This is a big plus overall for Rapid Shot (and flurry of blows).

The archer, with a mighty bow, gets his full strength bonus on all his attacks, including the extra shot.  The TWF only gets half his strength bonus on his off-hand attack.  OTOH, The archer has a cap on his strength bonus while the TWF does not.

TWF (2 feats) isn't even close to Rapid Shot (2 feats, except that you actually get something from the first one) in combat effectiveness, even ignoring the other factors (archers get full attacks more often, can attack very effectively at range, etc.).


----------



## Endur (Dec 5, 2002)

*Houserule: GMW only affects one arrow*

As a house rule, GMW affecting only one arrow seems like a reasonable compromise.  The result will mean that archers have to start buying magic arrows again.

Which is not necessarily bad.

I don't think any of the archers in my current campaign have ever bought a magic arrow.  They all rely upon GMW for arrows.

And this makes a class like the Arcane Archer much more prestigious (since every arrow they fire is magical).

Tom


----------



## jmichels` (Dec 5, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> An archer can do equivalent amounts of damage as melee characters while unmolested by the bad guys, since the melee guys in the party have to maneuver to intercept the enemy, while the archers hang back and full attack/RS every round.
> ...


----------



## Numion (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Grapple and Trip*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *Grapple is the first thing one of my monsters does when he is within reach of an archer.
> 
> People talk about sunder, but sunder is risky: you have to out-roll the archer, then you have to have a magic weapon better than the bow's magic.
> 
> ...




But you know, with grapple it's game over if there are any rogues or rogue-archers in the field..


----------



## Numion (Dec 5, 2002)

A few points I've noticed in my games:

1) Archers have Rapid Shot for extra attacks. Meleers have Cleave, which kicks in more rarely.

2) Archers can kick of with full attacks more often (=every round after the surprise, most likely). Meleers may have to move.

3) GMW + stacking of bows and arrows. Eats away some if not most (all actually if we're talking about single-hand weapon meleers) of the damage differences / hit when compared to meleers. To hit is just way higher than with meleers. 

4) At higher levels flying is reality in D&D. Easy too. So archers have severe advantage vs. most landbound creatures. 

5) AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you. 

6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)

7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)

The cumulative effect of points 1-7 is that archers tend cause more damage than meleers in my games. They would cause much more damage than meleers, but in my games arrows don't stack.   

I don't really understand all these specialty tactics people come up with vs. archers. Why should we need special tactics vs. them - we don't need special gimmicks vs. meleers. Which actually once more proves that archers have too much going for them...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 5, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> A few points I've noticed in my games:
> 
> 1) Archers have Rapid Shot for extra attacks. Meleers have Cleave, which kicks in more rarely.



Agreed. Two-handed meleers probably need a couple more feats - right now they they have almost none which are specific to them.


> 2) Archers can kick of with full attacks more often (=every round after the surprise, most likely). Meleers may have to move.



Also agreed, although in a 30f engagement range, I'd be amazed if this was actually the case. Once the enemy closes, archers really don't have a benefit over melee characters in this department, apart from rapid shot.


> 3) GMW + stacking of bows and arrows. Eats away some if not most (all actually if we're talking about single-hand weapon meleers) of the damage differences / hit when compared to meleers. To hit is just way higher than with meleers.



Agreed as well. Although bear in mind that a melee'er could get a +1 burst,shocking, blah blah blah blah weapon, then get it GMW'ed. Both types gain quite a bit from GMW.


> 4) At higher levels flying is reality in D&D. Easy too. So archers have severe advantage vs. most landbound creatures.



A melee fighter who abstains from ranged combat NEEDS flight, or some way to force his opponent into melee. And of course once he gets flight, he gets into dive attacks, for double damage (everyone say ooooh!)


> 5) AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you.



True.


> 6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)



Very true. Hence my wonderment at all these archers able to stay out of melee, and also my wonderment that, in the 2-3 rounds necessary to kill most creatures, the creatures are not managing to kill every non-warrior in the party.


> 7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)



Melee'ers have far more.


> The cumulative effect of points 1-7 is that archers tend cause more damage than meleers in my games. They would cause much more damage than meleers, but in my games arrows don't stack.
> 
> I don't really understand all these specialty tactics people come up with vs. archers. Why should we need special tactics vs. them - we don't need special gimmicks vs. meleers. Which actually once more proves that archers have too much going for them...



Entirely untrue. There are special tactics to use versus meleers, and it appears that peoples archers are, quite sensibly, using them. Stay out of reach. Against an archer, the tactic is stay out of line of fire. Anyone with half a brain will do that. You don't need to be a genius to duck when arrows start skittering about, and if you don't do so, you seriously deserve your own private agincourt. It's not a special tactic - it's damn near instinctual.

The key thing is that an archer isn't a team player. He's only pulling off half of his job as a high-ac, high-hitpoint character (if the people lauding them are to be believed). The other half of his job is keeping other group members safe. Most people would be peeved at group members capable of casting CLW not doing so when necessary. In the same breath, they should be cursing those people capable of tanking for not doing so.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 5, 2002)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *
> Agreed as well. Although bear in mind that a melee'er could get a +1 burst,shocking, blah blah blah blah weapon, then get it GMW'ed. Both types gain quite a bit from GMW.
> *




What works for the melee and GMW works twice for the archer.  The burst, shocking, ect weapon works just as good on bows, better since the enhancement doesn't defeat DR.  Then the arrows get the same treatment.  Now there's a question of money, but the same can be done for arrows.  This just makes the divide worse.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *
> Very true. Hence my wonderment at all these archers able to stay out of melee, and also my wonderment that, in the 2-3 rounds necessary to kill most creatures, the creatures are not managing to kill every non-warrior in the party.
> *




Since we are fundamentally talking just about warriors, melee vs archery, I don't see the relevance.  Regardless, the clerics and mages can easily be the most protected characters, using spells.  Also, if a monster was stong enough to kill several characters, it is a very tough encounter and not in the norm.  Encounters like that don't seem to show too much about the players involved except they are all outmatched.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 5, 2002)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *Entirely untrue. There are special tactics to use versus meleers, and it appears that peoples archers are, quite sensibly, using them. Stay out of reach. Against an archer, the tactic is stay out of line of fire. Anyone with half a brain will do that. You don't need to be a genius to duck when arrows start skittering about, and if you don't do so, you seriously deserve your own private agincourt. It's not a special tactic - it's damn near instinctual.*




You know, probably that's the main difference between Petrosians and my campaigns... Not some obscure houserules but:

My monsters don't like to stand around and watch as the archers fire volleys into them 

I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old _hide behind the tables_ western movie tactic.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 5, 2002)

> I am considering making bows similar to how they worked in 2E with the Bows giving +hit and the arrows giving +damage.




Are you sure about that? 2e rules were so unclear, inconsistent and just plain _bad_ that you shouldn't use them unless you have to. Take a look at some of the 2e stuff that got through without any changes - Harm, Time Stop... need I go on?



> I'll be tempted to drag rangers and free Amb/TWF into it.



Why are we talking about TWF at all? A two-handed weapon user can do that better, unless they're a rogue. I haven't seen a good two-handed IMC (maybe we need more skill in that area), but the Ambi/TWF users were even worse.

The two-hander has a roughly equal AC (heavier armor, lower Dex, no shield or the same Animated Shield that the archer uses) and can do craploads of damage, and it's cheaper for him to buy a weapon (he only needs one).



> I will give you that the archer loses some of his benefits outside 30' but i will suggest to you that the melee fighter is WORSE off at those ranges.




If a creature with 30 ft. of movement gets within 30 ft of the archer, why aren't they partial charging the archer and using improved grab, poison, or whatever nasty tricks they have up their sleeve?



> Yes, if the encounter distances are long, archery is a good choice, but encounter distances are not that long in the stereotypical dungeon.




They aren't even that long outdoors, except in deserts and on mountains, of course.



> AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you.




Flying creatures, summoned creatures, burrowed creatures, Dimension Door, etc. Why aren't your archers seeing these things?



> 6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)



= archer in melee.



> 7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)



If they're overpowered, don't use them.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic. *




"Hiding behind the table won't help you. It'll only stop 10 points!" -- paraphrased from Living Steel


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 5, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *My monsters don't like to stand around and watch as the archers fire volleys into them
> 
> I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic. *




And how are things like Steel Predators, Twig Blights, Manticores, Griffons and a host of other creatures to do that, exactly?  As often as not, when caught, they can either choose to turn and run, and hope they won't be gunned down before they get away or they can try and close the gap and stop the damage at it's source.  

I'm not looking for archers to suddenly become defanged...they SHOULD be better in some situations, perhaps many.  But there are situations where they shouldn't be, but in 3E, they really aren't penalized much at all, such as melee.  At higher levels, this becomes more apparent, not less.  I don't want to thrust my players into a box environment every combat, with anti-archer tactics engaged at every moment.  I just begin to become concerned that I should have to even consider it.

How about this:  can we use a standard character template, such as one of the iconics, or better yet, a 28-pt. buy character, and then compare their actual performance values at several levels?

For example: Use Regdar's stats at 1st, 5th, 10, 15th levels and see how he stacks up using a melee, say Greatsword feat chain and equipment versus a archery feat chain?  Or, if the differing focus on DX vs. ST would not work, a 28 point buy elf for archery versus a 28-pt buy half-orc, dwarf or human, perhaps.  In all cases, I'm mostly looking at a pure fighter selection...no PrCs, pure core item selection, with base wealth level assumptions per the DMG.

Perhaps that would allow us to do a reasonable comparison of their respective talents towards balance.  I know that everyone can come up with situations where each would excel, but what if we decided to run them against a few set encounter designs, such as:


Melee encounter, PCs suprise evil humanoids (kobolds, ogres, girallons, etc.)
Distance enounter in woods (100' distance) Intelligent enemies
Corridor encounter 5' wide, single file
Aerial battle atop Nightfang Spire, all combatants have fly spell active
And so forth...

The idea would be to present a qualitative comparison with everyone agreeing to the assumptions.  A lot of what fuels this debate is based on differing campaigns, with different rules and allowances for wealth, magic item availability, house rules and prestige classes/feats/spell availability.

Thoughts?


----------



## Malin Genie (Dec 5, 2002)

I like the idea of preventing GMW from affecting multiple arrows - but I've always thought 1/50 of the item price was too much to pay for magical arrows.

Maybe 1/200 though, rather than 1/500 - but the exact number can be tweaked.

Good idea anyway.


----------



## Pax (Dec 5, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> *A few points I've noticed in my games:
> 
> 1) Archers have Rapid Shot for extra attacks. Meleers have Cleave, which kicks in more rarely.*




Melee characters also have TWF, which kicks in (at high penalties) without *any* feats required -- and with little or NO penalty, for Rangers ... still with no feats required.  TWF eventually leads to being able to full-attack with (at epic levels) *each* weapon (eight attacks in total, more with _Speed_-enhanced weapons).



> *2) Archers can kick of with full attacks more often (=every round after the surprise, most likely). Meleers may have to move.*




Archers using ranged attacks inside an enemy's threatened zone provoke AoO's, melee fighters typically do not.



> *3) GMW + stacking of bows and arrows. Eats away some if not most (all actually if we're talking about single-hand weapon meleers) of the damage differences / hit when compared to meleers. To hit is just way higher than with meleers.*




Allright, *this* one I agree with, at least.  I've considered making GMW (and MW) affect no more than 5 or 10 projectile weapons, not enough to constitute an entire supply, but enough to let the spellcasters provide for a temporary gap in available magic weaponry for part of an encounter.



> *4) At higher levels flying is reality in D&D. Easy too. So archers have severe advantage vs. most landbound creatures.*




So use flying monsters.  Or INTELLIGENT monsters, with their OWN ranged weapons.



> *6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)*




And with inelligent (or even many semi-intelligent) foes, if the encounter is within 30 feet, then something WILL rush up to threaten the archer in melee range.



> *7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)*




I'll take my Fighter (10) / Duellist (10) pre-Epic "Armor Class Munckin" concept up against any Fighter (10) / "Archery PrCl" (10) character any day.  The point being, when rollign to hit ... if you have to ask, the answer is "no."  And yes, the Fighter/Duellist is 99% a melee character (their high dexterity helps offset the lack of ranged-oriented feats).  AC of 80-ish, without a single CUSTOM magic item ... all off-the-shelf.



> *The cumulative effect of points 1-7 is that archers tend cause more damage than meleers in my games. They would cause much more damage than meleers, but in my games arrows don't stack. *




Tactical failing on the DM's part, and probably alack of viable terrain for the NPC's to use against the ranged fighters.  *Especially* if most of the encounters are occurring at the 30-foot-or-less mark.



> *I don't really understand all these specialty tactics people come up with vs. archers. Why should we need special tactics vs. them - we don't need special gimmicks vs. meleers. Which actually once more proves that archers have too much going for them... *




Specialty tactics versus melee fighters: get an obstacle that limits their ability to get to you, and rain arrows (etc) on them.  One prime example of this is, a wall ... with arrowslits.  You know, like the ones around -castles- ... ?

Any weapon which gives a specific advantage on the field of battle, as an inevitable result, will spawn specific counter-tactics.  For melee combat, this usually manifests in movement patterns, weapon choices, attack-type choices (disarm, sunder, whatever).

Against ranged combat, it usually involves moving in a way that makes maximum use of available cover and/or concealment, or, answering in kind -- with massed volleys of ranged attacks!


----------



## Numion (Dec 5, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Melee characters also have TWF, which kicks in (at high penalties) without any feats required -- and with little or NO penalty, for Rangers ... still with no feats required.  TWF eventually leads to being able to full-attack with (at epic levels) each weapon (eight attacks in total, more with Speed-enhanced weapons).
> *





Are you kidding me? What good are those gazillion attacks if you don't hit anything? The bonuses of those attacks, especially iterative ones, will make it pretty hard to hit. 




> *
> Archers using ranged attacks inside an enemy's threatened zone provoke AoO's, melee fighters typically do not.
> *





Oh yeah. And the AoOs do happen. Most monsters, however, don't have Combat Reflexes. Whats so bad with being hit with one AoO when the "frontline" meleers are pounded by full attacks. I wasn't saying that archers are infinitely better than meleers.  happens to them too, but they are considerably more powerful than meleers.



> *
> So use flying monsters.  Or INTELLIGENT monsters, with their OWN ranged weapons.
> *





Having DMed two 3e campaigns from 1st to 16th level (the second still going at level 22) I have used flying monsters. I've used intelligent monsters. I've used creatures immune to arrows. The net effect still is that at about level 10 and onwards the archers combat capabilities exceed greatly those of meleers. 



> *
> And with inelligent (or even many semi-intelligent) foes, if the encounter is within 30 feet, then something WILL rush up to threaten the archer in melee range.
> *





Of course, if it's tactically useful. Sometimes they can't rush past the meleers. Usually the flying archers (if they aren't grappled by then) can just fly away with haste action (taking AoO's) and make a full attack. 




> *
> I'll take my Fighter (10) / Duellist (10) pre-Epic "Armor Class Munckin" concept up against any Fighter (10) / "Archery PrCl" (10) character any day.  The point being, when rollign to hit ... if you have to ask, the answer is "no."  And yes, the Fighter/Duellist is 99% a melee character (their high dexterity helps offset the lack of ranged-oriented feats).  AC of 80-ish, without a single CUSTOM magic item ... all off-the-shelf.
> *





Your point? Why would I allow that crap in my game?



> *
> Tactical failing on the DM's part, and probably alack of viable terrain for the NPC's to use against the ranged fighters.  Especially if most of the encounters are occurring at the 30-foot-or-less mark.
> *





Well, I don't know. My tactics are pretty sound, and the archers haven't been invincible or anything like that. They've just dealt the majority of damage in combat. And if the monsters we're hiding behind the obstacles, how would they hurt the PCs? 




> *
> Against ranged combat, it usually involves moving in a way that makes maximum use of available cover and/or concealment, or, answering in kind -- with massed volleys of ranged attacks! *




Usually the cover bonuses to AC don't help much. Feats lower it, and the archers attack bonuses are usually more than enough to hit. Using massed ranged attacks is a good idea, and I've used it before. Most of the monsters in DMG are meant for melee combat though.


----------



## Skaros (Dec 5, 2002)

So, for those of you saying archery has too few drawbacks in D&D.

What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?

If it was guys with guns versus guys with knives, I think we'd have less complaints that the guys with guns are more effective.  Archery is certainly less destructive than gunfire, but I'd still rate it far above melee combat in its strategic value.

Given that, what sort of drawbacks would make sense?  More definitive and balancing penalties when the archer is drawn into melee....perhaps something to make him consider actually drawing a sword when something closes into combat with them?

Of course, those are the sorts of drawbacks you'd expect spellcasters to have as well, and in both cases the ubiquitous 5' step gets around any drawbacks for the vast majority of situations.

So, nerfing GMW and rapid shot penalty changes aside, are there any good ideas for house rules that fit into the D&D rules in such a way as to effectively penalize arhcers to the extent some of you desire?

-Skaros


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 6, 2002)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *I like the idea of preventing GMW from affecting multiple arrows - but I've always thought 1/50 of the item price was too much to pay for magical arrows.
> 
> Maybe 1/200 though, rather than 1/500 - but the exact number can be tweaked.
> 
> Good idea anyway. *





The reason why I chose 1/500 is because most archers would then buy arrows +3 (since most monsters have DR X/+3). This would cost 18,000 gps for 500, or 36 gp per arrow. If the typical high level archer is firing 5-6 arrows a round, that's 180-216 gp. If a typical battle lasts 4 rounds, that's 720-864 gps a combat. (Which really starts to add up. IMO, 1/200 is still too expensive.)

1/500 is in line with potions and it's also not so expensive that no one would ever use bows. Also, DMs can give magical arrows as treasure without PCs automatically selling them as soon as they got to town. (I have never seen a party actually use magical arrows found as treasure, even with an archer in the party.) 
.
.
.
.
*



			Darklone--

but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic.
		
Click to expand...


*
The next time I DM, I'll be sure to equip all of my NPCs with tables. *grin*
.
.
.
.
*



			Skaros--
What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?
		
Click to expand...


*
Personally, I'm not looking for drastic changes to the game. I think that altering GMW and magic arrow prices should be enough to make archers less of a combat necessity. Instead of actually altering that game mechanics of DnD archery, I'm going to hit PCs where they are vulnerable the most:

Their wallets.


----------



## Lela (Dec 6, 2002)

Dangit, this shouldn't be in this thread.  *Snip*

The dangers of multitasking.


----------



## Pax (Dec 6, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me?[/b]




Not in the slightest.



> *What good are those gazillion attacks if you don't hit anything? The bonuses of those attacks, especially iterative ones, will make it pretty hard to hit. *




Presupposing the TWF character uses light weapons (shortswords, say), and presupposing the archer utilises Rapid Shot ... the attacks will be p[enalised (above and beyond iterative issues) -2 for BOTH characters.

And for the additional feats spent on TWF-twinking, the TWF character can eventually have as many as 8 attacks (without magic) during a full attack ... 

Is the parity perfect?  No.  But, neither is it so grossly out of balance as many here would have us believe.


*



			Oh yeah. And the AoOs do happen. Most monsters, however, don't have Combat Reflexes. Whats so bad with being hit with one AoO when the "frontline" meleers are pounded by full attacks. I wasn't saying that archers are infinitely better than meleers.  happens to them too, but they are considerably more powerful than meleers.
		
Click to expand...


*
Again, that presumes the foes are not sentient beings ... say, *NPC's with levels* ...!  An Orc Fighter(4) is, what, CR4?  A couple dozen of them would be, what, EL 8 or EL 10 (or close to it) ... ?



> *Having DMed two 3e campaigns from 1st to 16th level (the second still going at level 22) I have used flying monsters. I've used intelligent monsters. I've used creatures immune to arrows. The net effect still is that at about level 10 and onwards the archers combat capabilities exceed greatly those of meleers.*




Then I daresay you have a similar failing to that of the DM of my own first 3E experience: utter lack of terrain effects.  Trees and leaves provide concealment, if not cover ... more and more, the further you are form the target (result: closing to melee range rewards the melee characters, while the ranged characters suffer miss %'s ...).



> *Of course, if it's tactically useful. Sometimes they can't rush past the meleers. Usually the flying archers (if they aren't grappled by then) can just fly away with haste action (taking AoO's) and make a full attack.*




It is *always* tacticallyuseful toe liminate a source of damage.  The greater the damage a source is producing, the greater the usefulness of eliminating it.  If archers are, as you allege, the *best* dealers-of-damage, then ignoring the melee characetrs to close with the ranged fighters is *the* tactic to pursue.  Period.



> *Your point? Why would I allow that crap in my game?*




Funny; I did state the Fighter(10)/Duellist(10) is entirely off-the-shelf, with nothing custom to speak of.  Frankly the only thing I even need from outside the PHB or DMG, is the Duellist PrC itself (and it's one of the more innocuous PrC's from the splatbooks, really).  Yet it demonstrates that, *done well*, a melee character can run circles around enemies, too.

Heck, for the Duellist, the AC jumps by 8 (vs AoO's) when doing precisely that --- running around the enemy (in their threatened zone).



> *Well, I don't know. My tactics are pretty sound, and the archers haven't been invincible or anything like that. They've just dealt the majority of damage in combat. And if the monsters we're hiding behind the obstacles, how would they hurt the PCs?*




I daresay, your tactics, terrain, circumstances-of-encounter, and choice of opposition probably FAVOR the use of ranged weapons.  Heavily, I suspect. 


*



			Usually the cover bonuses to AC don't help much. Feats lower it, and the archers attack bonuses are usually more than enough to hit. Using massed ranged attacks is a good idea, and I've used it before. Most of the monsters in DMG are meant for melee combat though.
		
Click to expand...


*
*One* feat lowers Cover-gained AC bonusses (Sharpshooter, from S&F), and not by a large amount.  9/10's cover (an Orc crossbowman behind an arrow slit) is harsh.  Add in a nice screen of ivy across the wall the 'slit is set in, and you can even get concealment TOO ... without the orc suffering much.  Now, it's in the party's best interests to run AROUND that wall (through the doorway, around the end of the ruined wall, whatever the specific encounter circumstances dictate), and close to melee range.

Most of the monsters are melee, perhaps -- if you assume they show up in frequencies proportional to each otehr, IOW, that a goblin is no more common than a dragon.

Goblins, by the way, should not only be more plentiful ... but they advance BY CLASS.  Think about it.


----------



## Mallik (Dec 6, 2002)

*How to Fix Archers*

It's this simple: use a battlemat and miniatures (or dice/markers of some kind).

This is /necessary/ to enforce the rule that make archers balanced: cover.

In a dungeon and shooting halfway around a corner? shooting through your allies? Etc. there're a million things to think about in a combat situation that you can't do in your head, that effectively reduce archers' power. 

Having a 2/4/7/10 cover bonus to AC will seriously make your archer think twice about how great it is to be outside of range. 

We gave this a try, and started doing all of our combats on a mat-- archers are still scary if heavily maxed to be scary, but they're not much better than melee combatants, and it's much more likely that they'll be forced into melee this way, to boot.

Try it.

-Ryan


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 6, 2002)

Skaros said:
			
		

> *So, for those of you saying archery has too few drawbacks in D&D.
> 
> What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?
> 
> ...




The stacking of enhancement on amunition, in general, is a problem for me.  I wouldn't mind GMW if the enhancements didn't stack.

The 5 foot problem is also bad.  How about a house rule for an extra attack at your lowest attack against any person who doesn't threaten you?  A kind of "reckless attacking" that lets you slaughter the weak (in melee at least).  This may be a bit much, but I think it might be worth a thought.

Finally, protection from arrows should increase as fast or faster than GMW, at least in the bonus.  Since not every one can have it, the ability to immune to most missles should be a interesting tatic.  That way, it would have involve melee or more spells and archers could look for other targets or tatics.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 6, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> Again, that presumes the foes are not sentient beings ... say, *NPC's with levels* ...!  An Orc Fighter(4) is, what, CR4?  A couple dozen of them would be, what, EL 8 or EL 10 (or close to it) ... ?



Not every encounter includes inteligent creatures.  Not every inteligent creature takes combat reflexes.  You have shown nothing, unless you suggesst making a large perchent of encounters into this sort.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> It is *always* tacticallyuseful toe liminate a source of damage.  The greater the damage a source is producing, the greater the usefulness of eliminating it.  If archers are, as you allege, the *best* dealers-of-damage, then ignoring the melee characetrs to close with the ranged fighters is *the* tactic to pursue.  Period.




Use is determined by cost.  If the tatic causes you to be surrounded by enemies, take multiple AoOs, and the target can simply step away from you, it doesn't sound that usefull.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> *One* feat lowers Cover-gained AC bonusses (Sharpshooter, from S&F), and not by a large amount.  9/10's cover (an Orc crossbowman behind an arrow slit) is harsh.  Add in a nice screen of ivy across the wall the 'slit is set in, and you can even get concealment TOO ... without the orc suffering much.




So, what your are saying is that the archer has a huge advantage, shooting the party untill they can reach him.  Why does this show archery isn't more powerful?  Could you do this with melee?  This does not help your case.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Most of the monsters are melee, perhaps -- if you assume they show up in frequencies proportional to each otehr, IOW, that a goblin is no more common than a dragon.
> 
> Goblins, by the way, should not only be more plentiful ... but they advance BY CLASS.  Think about it. [/B]




Goblins get old, fast.  The concept of the goblin is to attack en-mass, not produce a few powerful goblins to win the battle.  Yes, goblins do advance by class, but they are only listed in the MM up a few levels because of the concept of the race.  Facing the powerful and strange is more fun than the mundane warmed over, hence the large number of different creatures in the game.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 6, 2002)

*Next time my NPCs will bring tables to the battle!*

LOL, yeah, right, I think those things are called tower shields and provide full cover.

As for the argument that the AoO against the archer is not bad... If the monster trips the archer with that AoO, the archer is screwed for that round (nooooo rapid shot orgy). And the 5ft step back doesn't help against 10ft reach monsters.

Ok, the archer will probably tumble backwards with partial haste action and shoot the full volley then... But he still loses one attack at full attack bonus. Not to mention that I got the impression that many guys houseruled tumble, but that's not important here.

I don't know how you handle it... but my PCs don't always surprise the monsters. And monsters that are subject to an archers volleys usually hide in full cover and ready a partial charge at the archer, possibly damaging his weapon.

But well. Some guys here have the impression that archers are too strong and their main argument is their experience. Others have different experiences. This leads me to the conclusion that it's a matter of the DM. As usual. 

So use a *houserule* (hint hint) that fits your group and your problem.

*Edit:* Sorry, hong. Tables don't stop arrows but provide hardness 10, that's right... But if you don't see your enemy behind the table, you shouldn't forget the 50% concealment? Hmm, can you shoot through a tower shield ? After all, many tables may be tougher than a towershield...


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: How to Fix Archers*



			
				Mallik said:
			
		

> *It's this simple: use a battlemat and miniatures (or dice/markers of some kind).
> 
> This is /necessary/ to enforce the rule that make archers balanced: cover.
> *




We have never * not * used a battlemap and miniatures for DnD. 

All of my experiences have been with multiple DMs in multiple campaigns with multiple archers and always using a battlemap with terrain, darkness, concealment, cover, trees, walls, NPCs and PCs all adjucated. (Also using multitudes of different styles of houseruling, from strict rules interpretations to thick volumes of house rules.)


*



			Having a 2/4/7/10 cover bonus to AC will seriously make your archer think twice about how great it is to be outside of range.
		
Click to expand...


*
With a high Dex, Bracers of Archery, the Sharp-Shooting feat, and stacking bow and arrow bonuses to hit, cover becomes pretty meaningless. (Unless it's 9/10ths or total cover. In which case the bad guys are pinned down and unable to damage the party at all.)
.
.
.
*



			Pax---
Trees and leaves provide concealment, if not cover ... more and more, the further you are form the target (result: closing to melee range rewards the melee characters, while the ranged characters suffer miss %'s ...).
		
Click to expand...


*
Seeking from the S&F. Check it out. Or you could just go with the Deepwood Sniper.
.
.
.
.
*



			Darklone---
I don't know how you handle it... but my PCs don't always surprise the monsters.
		
Click to expand...


*
Surprise affects melee guys as equally as it affects archers.

*



			As for the argument that the AoO against the archer is not bad... If the monster trips the archer with that AoO, the archer is screwed for that round (nooooo rapid shot orgy). And the 5ft step back doesn't help against 10ft reach monsters.
		
Click to expand...


*
So here is the situation you just discribed:

1) A melee guy didn't block the monster from getting to the archer.
2) The monster ignores every character standing in front of the archer.
3) The monster didn't die in the first round Rapid Shot from the archer. (Due to surprise or what have you.)
4) The monster has 10 ft. reach.
5) The archer doesn't have a bunch of ranks in Tumble. (Which hasn't been houseruled.)
6) The archer has a lower AC than everyone else in the group.
7) The archer has lower hps than everyone else in the group.

Sure, if every one of these things happen, then the specific archer in question is doomed. Of course, it could also be the case that this exact sitution is pretty rare, and that it isn't a viable way of judging the game-balance of archery.


*



			And monsters that are subject to an archers volleys usually hide in full cover and ready a partial charge at the archer,
		
Click to expand...


*
And what? The archer walks boldly up and gets ambushed by the monsters hiding behind full cover? The melee guys run forward and get trounced by the monsters?

*



			possibly damaging his weapon.
		
Click to expand...


*
Affects melee characters as equally as it affects archers.

*



			LOL, yeah, right, I think those things are called tower shields and provide full cover.
		
Click to expand...


*
I was joking. Hence the "*grin*" in my post.



Seriously, though: if the solution you propose is to equip every intellegent monster with a tower shield, I'd rather nerf GMW. It's a little less silly that way.


----------



## Numion (Dec 6, 2002)

*Pax*, you've given me some good info on how to shaft the archers. However, I can, and already _have_, done just that. My point was that archers have too much going for them, rules-wise. 

Shafting players and nerfing their tactics is easy, for any DM. You can do whatever you like. I would've preferred melee and archery to be balanced from the get-go.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, probably that's the main difference between Petrosians and my campaigns... Not some obscure houserules but:
> 
> ...




Ahh the old "the reason i do it right is because i run smarter" line of reasoning.

Nowhere did i state or even imply that my bad guys just stand around. Now, i can see where it will help your ego to just assume that other people play dumber than you, and so some good comes from the commentary you just provided, but it adds little to the overall discussion.

All the cover discussions tend to run into one major problem.

Circumstance which prevent archers from getting a shot, also tend to prevent meleers and possibly even spellers from doing so as well. An archer need LOE at range which is typically easier to get than LOE at no range. If a wall prevents my archer from moving 30' and gettin a shot within 30', its likely also going to stop the meleer from getting to melee range.

or to put it simply... the ability to attack AT RANGE is not MORE RESTRICTIVE than the necessity of attacking at reach. While circumstances can make both of them more difficult, the number and frequency of circumstances which make the NECESSIY of reach better than the ability to attack at range are fewer than the converse.

If your meleer can strike from 5', I can stand right behind him and shoot from 10 with the +4 benefit from GMW evaporating the cover bonus. All i am left with as a lowly archer is one extra attack at my highest BAB. Awww...

Sure, there are even some circumstances which prevent attacks from 10' or more, and the rest of your party will likely be worse off than the archer.

YMMV, what with you neing so much cleverer and all.


----------



## Pax (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mallik:_
> *It's this simple: use a battlemat and miniatures (or dice/markers of some kind).
> 
> This is /necessary/ to enforce the rule that make archers balanced: cover.*




In fact, another option is -- in the absence of a battlemat -- a whiteboard.  I have the luxury of gaming at the local college, where there's a student club dedicated to gaming of all sorts, and especially RPGs.  They made a (wise) investment a few years back, and have a LARGE whiteboard in each of their two rooms.  As a GM, I've drawn a quick grid for the encounter area, and used single-letter (or letter-number pairs) for each character, PC or NPC, involved.

That, and a string held center-square to center-square, results in reasonably impartial rulings on cover/concealment issues.  On a battlemat, it's even better (since the squares are guaranteed to be uniform in size and proportion, etc).

So in short, Mallik's advice is GOOD advice: use a battlemat, or make an equivalent (a sheet of graph paper and a pencil, if you must).  It cuts down on archers' "superiority" by a long way.



> _Originally posted by LokiDR:_
> *Not every encounter includes inteligent creatures. Not every inteligent creature takes combat reflexes. You have shown nothing, unless you suggesst making a large perchent of encounters into this sort.*




A large minority of encounters -should- be with intelligent or semi-intelligent foes.  One does have to conider *motivation* for each encounter; I'm sorry, but I have to ask -- have you grown out of the "menagerie of new and more exotic creatures" parade-of-encounters mode, yet?

If the party is going to encounter something, the GM should first have asked WHY the encounter will happen.  "Because it'll be fun to have them fight creatures X, Y, and/or Z" isn't really a good reason.

Sentient foes are easiest to justify; give them a reason to be at thatlocation, give them a reason to impede the party in some way (toll-collecting orcs at a bridge, for one simple example).  Then, let the players loose on the encounter.



> *Use is determined by cost. If the tatic causes you to be surrounded by enemies, take multiple AoOs, and the target can simply step away from you, it doesn't sound that usefull.*




And *if*, as you continually assert, the archers are *the* primary source of damage, then almost ANY cost is justified to eliminate them ... *FAST.*  As for stepping away ... that depends on your tactics (and your armament).  Spiked Chains (or, from S&F, the Duom) are reach weapons that also allow attacks against adjacent foes.

Alternately, Armor Spikes with any reach weapon.  Or, a mounted opponent, whose mount has reach; ride up, whack them, and if they step back to fire ... the mount gets an AoO, the RIDER possibly gets an AoO, and the archer is in a world of hurt.

Or, if the NPC is hasted, they pull a _Move-and-Standard-Attack_ action with their normal round of action, and use their partial action to "Ready: move with archer X, keeping him in reach of my weapon" ... against a specific ranged-attacking enemy.  They move, you rect and move WITH them, and the result is they stay threatened by your weapon.



> _Originally posted by Pax:_
> Originally posted by Pax
> One feat lowers Cover-gained AC bonusses (Sharpshooter, from S&F), and not by a large amount. 9/10's cover (an Orc crossbowman behind an arrow slit) is harsh. Add in a nice screen of ivy across the wall the 'slit is set in, and you can even get concealment TOO ... without the orc suffering much.
> 
> ...




You haven't been paying attention.  The enemy archer has all the advantages, and they are advantages cancelled ONLY by the PC's closing to MELEE RANGE.  That favors the melee-combat specialists; the ranged fighters will suffer the cover-and-concealment penalties the enemy archer has chosen to make use of, while the melee fighters try and outflank that same enemy.



> *Goblins get old, fast. The concept of the goblin is to attack en-mass, not produce a few powerful goblins to win the battle. Yes, goblins do advance by class, but they are only listed in the MM up a few levels because of the concept of the race. Facing the powerful and strange is more fun than the mundane warmed over, hence the large number of different creatures in the game.*




Goblins, only?  My you have a well-trained "selective comprehension" skill, don't you?

Goblins.  Orcs and Half-Orcs.  Ogres (dim bulbs but not COMPLETELY stupid).  Hobgoblins.  Gnolls.  Kobolds.  Humans.  Elves.  Dwarves.  Halflings.  Gnomes.  Centaurs.  Demons, devils, and other lower-planar unfriendlies.  Lycanthropes.  Dragons, and often their minions.  In the FRCS, Shades (of various pre-template racial types).

And that's thirty seconds' thinking, off the top of my head.  Several of the above options come in multiple "Flavors" (an encounter with a Drow Priestess and her entourage will not be the same as an encounter with a Wild Elven barbarian war-party ...).

...

Now, with all that said, to various and sundry ... I do agree on several points.

GMW as written is brokenly powerful.  I'll be changing it to affect 10 bolts / arrows / sling bullets / whatevers per casting.  I will also, however, extend the same ability, in the same numbers, to vanilla MW (early on, being able to use MW to give the party some magical ranged weapons helps both players (as a safety net) and GM's (they can throw DR X/+1 flying monsters at the party before handing out magic arrows).

Protection from Arrows should advance in step with GMW, I agree.

As for stacking ammunition with the launcher; I'm unsure on this, but some alteration seems to be in order.  I will probably go with +hit from the arrows, and +damage from the launcher ... it makes more sense to me that way, and that *is* somewhat more in keeping with how such devices work in real life.

However, while I agree some tweaking is needed, I don't think the balance between melee and ranged is COMPLETELY broken, left as-is.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

"If a creature with 30 ft. of movement gets within 30 ft of the archer, why aren't they partial charging the archer and using improved grab, poison, or whatever nasty tricks they have up their sleeve?"

They possibly are. If a clea line of movemtn presents itself, and if this line wont allow AoOs from other PCs and so on. The nasty little catch is, every one of these works just fine vs the melee fighter too. IF the enemy can get to the archer, he can poison, improved grab and so on. Odds are tho, he can get to the melee fighter more easily and may even have been able to do so with a full attack. As an archer, a troll charging me is nothing to worry about. As a meleer, a trol full attacking me is.

This is part of the "archer edge."

"Flying creatures, summoned creatures, burrowed creatures, Dimension Door, etc. Why aren't your archers seeing these things?"

They do and when those things occur, the archer is EVERY BIT AS ABLE TO BE ATTACKED AS THE MELEE FIGHTER. Not that i said EVERY BIT AS... not MORE ABLE TO BE... and so on. Creatures who can move without having to go thru your lines can move to whomever they wish. In these cirtcumstances, anyone is vulnerable.

Citing cases after case where the archer is no better than the meleer is not gonna counter one single case where he is.

As for DIMDOOR, with the end your action thing, i have seen that specific one rarely work.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 6, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> A large minority of encounters -should- be with intelligent or semi-intelligent foes.  One does have to conider *motivation* for each encounter; I'm sorry, but I have to ask -- have you grown out of the "menagerie of new and more exotic creatures" parade-of-encounters mode, yet?
> 
> If the party is going to encounter something, the GM should first have asked WHY the encounter will happen.  "Because it'll be fun to have them fight creatures X, Y, and/or Z" isn't really a good reason.
> 
> Sentient foes are easiest to justify; give them a reason to be at thatlocation, give them a reason to impede the party in some way (toll-collecting orcs at a bridge, for one simple example).  Then, let the players loose on the encounter.




Monsters with low to no inteligence are just as easy, if not easier to justify a fight.  "the pack of ____ run twords you, hunger in their eyes."  Do not presume to tell me what the percentage of encounters should be for inteligent and non-inteligent for my campaign.  If you don't know that this changes from campaign to campaign, you have a larger problem.

I don't see you point any way, since you state that inteligent foes should be a minority of the encounters seen.  I hope you don't believe combat reflexes should be included in every inteligent creature encounter, as that would get repeditive.  

So this discussion of trick inteligent creatures isn't the most helpful.  Ditto spell casters.  If wanted to make encounters screw archers, I easily could.  I want to find times when the melee has advantage and isn't simply meat to be ground up.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> And *if*, as you continually assert, the archers are *the* primary source of damage, then almost ANY cost is justified to eliminate them ... *FAST.*  As for stepping away ... that depends on your tactics (and your armament).  Spiked Chains (or, from S&F, the Duom) are reach weapons that also allow attacks against adjacent foes.
> 
> Alternately, Armor Spikes with any reach weapon.  Or, a mounted opponent, whose mount has reach; ride up, whack them, and if they step back to fire ... the mount gets an AoO, the RIDER possibly gets an AoO, and the archer is in a world of hurt.
> 
> Or, if the NPC is hasted, they pull a _Move-and-Standard-Attack_ action with their normal round of action, and use their partial action to "Ready: move with archer X, keeping him in reach of my weapon" ... against a specific ranged-attacking enemy.  They move, you rect and move WITH them, and the result is they stay threatened by your weapon.




More tatics for the minority.  

Not even a large perchent of those will take exotic weapons.  Mounted characters are something, however.  Most mounts I can think of, unless you are taking about dragons, don't have reach, the rider does.  Ok, a minor point.  But the tatic is shut down by a tumble check, DC15, which isn't that hard to get.

The ready action trick is good.  This is the first tatic I can remember in this thread that really socks it to archers.  Ok, that's good.  Now how often can I use it?  First, requires inteligent foes, the minority.  Next, you need haste, which should be a minority of inteligent encounters.  Then, the melee man must get to the archer, which my involve AoOs.  Finally, your melee man is using one attack a round when he has at least 2.  A fellow PC meleer should be able to make mince meat of him as he widdles me down, or better a fellow archer.  On top of all that, I can avoid most attacks by double moving away, and the melee machine may not even be able to charge me. 1 for 1 isn't always the best trade for NPCs, especially if they are using up a decent level spell.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> You haven't been paying attention.  The enemy archer has all the advantages, and they are advantages cancelled ONLY by the PC's closing to MELEE RANGE.  That favors the melee-combat specialists; the ranged fighters will suffer the cover-and-concealment penalties the enemy archer has chosen to make use of, while the melee fighters try and outflank that same enemy.




How is it harder for the archer to make that exact same manuver and still have the advantage of shooting the enemy from the door rather than being forced to charge him?  You have shown only that archery can be used against archery, and it is STILL in the minority of inteligent creature combats.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Goblins, only?  My you have a well-trained "selective comprehension" skill, don't you?
> 
> Goblins.  Orcs and Half-Orcs.  Ogres (dim bulbs but not COMPLETELY stupid).  Hobgoblins.  Gnolls.  Kobolds.  Humans.  Elves.  Dwarves.  Halflings.  Gnomes.  Centaurs.  Demons, devils, and other lower-planar unfriendlies.  Lycanthropes.  Dragons, and often their minions.  In the FRCS, Shades (of various pre-template racial types).
> 
> And that's thirty seconds' thinking, off the top of my head.  Several of the above options come in multiple "Flavors" (an encounter with a Drow Priestess and her entourage will not be the same as an encounter with a Wild Elven barbarian war-party ...).




Goblins, orcs, kobolds, gnolls and hobgoblins all use the same concept.  I was making the point that fighting the same thing as you go up in level can get boring, especially if concept is a horde of weak creatures with a few leaders.

That isn't the point here.  You were saying that goblin (weak) creatures should be more common than powerful (dragon) so the fact that there are a lot of melee creatures is irrelevant, because weak creatures can be advanced and attack using massed archery.  This has a problem: you are saying use archery which seems to say that it is good.  That is my point, it is always good to be on the side with the archer except a rare extreem like high wind.  I also like to use different creatures, and there are more melee monsters to choose from.  On top of that, you agreed that inteligent creatures should be in the minority of encounters.


On a side note, calling an argument sundry, statement such as "I'm sorry, but I have to ask -- have you grown out of ....", and  'My you have a well-trained "selective comprehension" skill, don't you?' only show your lack of etiquite and you are only here for demeaning others.  I don't think they add anything, and take focus away from the discussion.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 6, 2002)

Hmm. These examples always give me the impression that the PCs outnumber their enemies. There are melee types standing in front of the archers... your archers can tumble through the lines, the enemies can't, every sane PC is hasted, the enemies not... And speaking about intelligent enemies... As a minority???

Now this REALLY is a difference to my games. Nearly the only not intelligent opponents my PCs meet and have to battle (since you can usually evade some animals or move them to other locations if they endanger a village) are summoned monsters. Who are usually commanded by the summoners.

I do have to admit that I seldomly have battles where the PCs overpower their enemies like you described it.

As for the big trip trick monsters... A troll that tripped an archer once will not lose contact to that archer even if a melee type is next to him. Standing up and moving back causes another AoO... which is used as trip attempt. You say you use larger monsters (less cover): Trip and grapple them as hell. Sure, they can stick to shortswords and other tricks then... but they won't shoot. Well, as long as they don't have small longbows


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 6, 2002)

my 2 cents which will be short since this has been hashed out enough already IMO.

Archers at their core are more effective than the melle types, and since they aren't particulary vulnerable to mellee or combat in general that is a probelm.

You can weaken the effect of archers with special tacitcs. a few things about that.

   1. yeah its great I can balance them a bit with special tactics, but I still need special tactics to bring them ito line which shouldn't be necesary.

   2. most of the tactics I can use hinder the grunts just as much so I'm not doing much for balanceing them.

  3.  If I do it enough to let the mellee types shine as much as the archers do, it will be absurdly hard to not be giving the archers the impression that I'm punishing them.


As much as I like D&D this might be one of the probelms of their class sytem.  If the archer was a class as oposed to the fighter, then the archer might rock at range and be dang effective, but I could make him fragile and needing of protection similar to but not nearly as extreme as the wizard.     As is though I may end up actively punishing the archers in game for playing their roles as written.(IMO a nerf would be better)  Ok it wasn't short.

edited for clarity


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> I do have to admit that I seldomly have battles where the PCs overpower their enemies like you described it.
> *



I dont know if you just mentally swapped in inadvertantly overpower for outnumber or not.

In my games its about 50/50 as to whether the PCs or the NPCs are producing the conflict. The numbers usually run with 10% PCs having a big advantage in situation, 20% Pcs having slight edge, 40% relatively even, 20% favor enemies and 10% favor the enemies big. So the favorable environment and numbers varies quite a bit. Numbers is especially variable.

if, however, you are slanting your points now towards some sort of "you cannot have both an archer and a melee guy in your party, choose one" type of nons...position... then thats fine but its very limited.

My current group of PCs, for instance, down from 7 contains 6... fighter, barbarian, sorcerer, druid/ranger, rogue and monk.



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> As for the big trip trick monsters... A troll that tripped an archer once will not lose contact to that archer even if a melee type is next to him. Standing up and moving back causes another AoO... which is used as trip attempt. You say you use larger monsters (less cover): Trip and grapple them as hell. Sure, they can stick to shortswords and other tricks then... but they won't shoot. Well, as long as they don't have small longbows
> *




Well, to limit the repetitiveness... i wont go into how these tactics work against melee guys, where the troll is taking full attacks, including possible rend, instead of single attacks plus AoO.


----------



## ashockney (Dec 6, 2002)

*A different perspective*

Ok, I didn't sort through all six pages of posts, but I get the gist...

1) "Archers" are more powerful than other fighters, especially those specialized in "melee" combat.

2) "Archers" deal the most damage in combat.

3) GMW shouldn't stack with arrow and bow.

Several others have asserted:

4) Archers must contend with concealment, cover, and attacks of opportunity.

5) Specific tactics (used by NPC's) can help to reduce the effectiveness of archers (although some feats and prestige class abilites help to negate these penalties).  

Ok.  Here's my 2 cents on the "issues" from the thread.

1.  Archers are NOT more powerful than other fighters, because...what's stopping the fighter from pulling out his bow too?  Why is this different from the sorcerer, standing next to the archer, casting two Firebrand Spells (5th, MoF)on everyone of the villians the second he walks into the room?  Getting a full attack action vs. a partial action is a HUGE difference.  Thus, the need for the POUNCE special ability, from Singh Rager in OA.  I would even argue this should be a "high end" feat above Spring Attack on that feat chain.  In this regard, other fighters can be equally effective (give or take some special abilites) as archers AND go whip up in melee.  Sweet.

2. Archers can dish it, no doubt.  So can a melee Scimitar/Khopesh wielding Weaponmaster with a Vorpal Sword.  You ever seen a Vorpal Whirlwind attack?  You don't want to. How about a frenzied berserker power attacking?  Overall, an archer's damage isn't significantly higher once we take out the "full attack" vs. "partial action" issues.  Keep in mind that there are limitations on the strength bonus to damage that an archer will receive.  This is a significant difference!

3).  GMW should stack.  What!?!?!  Sacrilege!  Heathen!  Here's why:
a) Offset Range Penalties
b) Offset Concealment Penalties
c) Offset Cover Penalties
d) Offset limitations placed on strength damage from bows.
Please note, that whatever book put power attack in as a prestige class abilities for archers must have been PLAYTESTING: OPTIONAL.  This was abundantly obvious to our whole group the first minute someone used a bow.  This should get rule-0'd, or at a minimum, cap the PA bonus to 5 to keep it reasonable.  Yikes.


----------



## Zad (Dec 6, 2002)

Wizardru wisely suggested a comparison on equal footing. So I tried it

* Note: this is probably riddled with math errors and there are optimizations that could be done to both characters.*


Let's ponder a pair of 28 point buy characters. One archer, one greatsword fighter. Perhaps we can add a two-weapon fighter later. Both are human fighters and will remain so during their career so as to facilitate a fair comparison. I will equip them very modestly as they level up, giving only the most basic weapons so as to simplify the comparison. No prestige classes, core rules basically. These characters are not optimized or tweaked so they could be better, but at least they're on equal footing.

Starting stats:

GreatswordGuy
STR 18, DEX 10, CON 16

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 18, CON 14

(Int, wis, and cha will be 8 for both)


At level 5
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 19, DEX 10, CON 16.  Avg hp = 27.5+15=42.5

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great Cleave

With his +1 greatsword he is +11 to hit and 2d6+7 (avg. 14) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +6 to hit, and 2d6+12 (avg. 19) damage via power attack.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 19, CON 14 Avg hp = 27.5+10=37.5

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative

With his +1 mighty composite longbow (considerably more expensive than the greatsword) the archer is +11 to hit and 1d8+2 (avg 6.5) damage. Inside 30 feet the archer is +12 to hit, and 1d8+5 damage (avg 9.5). With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +10/+10 at 1d8+6 dmg (avg 10.5 ea, 21 combined).

Analysis: Looks about even to me. If we assign "favorable" conditions to each character, the swordsman will do 19 points on a power-attacked hit, and may cleave. The archer will do 21 points. The swordsman can also respond to attacks of opportuntity that the archer cannot, and the swordsman can move and do his damage, so they are slight points in favor of the swordsman.

At level 10
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 20, DEX 10, CON 16.  Avg hp = 55+30=85

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +2 greatsword he is +18/+13 to hit and 2d6+9 (avg. 16, total 32) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +8/+3 to hit, and 2d6+19 (avg. 26, total 52) damage via power attack. A bit extreme for most cases tho.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 20, CON 14 Avg hp = 55+20=75

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +2 mighty composite longbow and +2 arrows (assuming the availability of greater magic weapon, which is reasonable at this level) the archer is +20/+15 to hit and 1d8+5 (avg 9.5, total 19) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +18/+18/+13 at 1d8+9 dmg (avg 13.5 ea, 40.5 combined). 

Analysis: The conclusion becomes harder now but the archer is showing slightly more damage. They are at about the same to hit bonus without power attack. On the other hand with power attack, the swordsman looses accuracy but can pull closer in damage. I'd say at this level, we're starting to see a gap open in damage but there are mitigating factors.


At level 15
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 21, DEX 10, CON 16.  Avg hp = 82.5+45=127.5

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +4 greatsword he is +23/+18/+13 to hit and 2d6+11 (avg. 18, total 54) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +8/+3/-2 to hit, and 2d6+26 (avg. 33, total 99) damage via power attack. A bit extreme for most cases tho. At this point however he can expect to be using power attack more regularly.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 21, CON 14 Avg hp = 82.5+30=112.5

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +4 mighty composite longbow and +5 arrows (assuming the availability of greater magic weapon, which is reasonable at this level) the archer is +28/+23/+18 to hit and 1d8+11 (avg 15.5, total 46.5) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +26/+26/+22/+16 at 1d8+14 dmg (avg 18.5 ea, 74 combined). 

Analysis: The archer has a more distinct lead now. He can be prety sure of doing his 74, while the swordsman will average 54 at lower accuracy. This is a pretty sizable damage gap. However the swordsman can still take AOO's and threaten hexes however and that's hard to account for in the numbers, and can do a good bit more damage with power attack. Even a 5 point shift means a 15 point damage change. The swordsman has the flexibility of doing more damage to low AC targets, while the archer's bonus is wasted.  The key difference seems to be the stacking of magical bows and arrows. 

As an aside you now have the solid edge in hp for the swordsman. They will have about the same AC I believe. The archer either has to give up dex bonus and wear heavy armor, or wear light armor. Either case will make their AC's converge.

Conclusion here is that the archer is doing more damage, but the swordsman is more flexible and a different battlefield presence, akin to the difference between a tank and a piece of artillery. The swordsman will have an edge defensively, which helps compensate for the lower damage. The swordsman also has twice the crit range of the archer, and this will raise his damage accordingly (Swordsman crits on a 17-20 vs archer on a 19-20) but this would be offset slightly by the higher crit multiplier on the bow.

Again these characters are minimally equipped. If a simple item like a stat bonus item is introduced, it allows the archer to simply hit more (assuming dex boosted) whereas the melee fighter gains more damage and hit bonus. A +2 to damage per swing for the swordsman closes the gap significantly. The archer could take a strength item and increase the pull on the bow however so this hardly makes a huge difference. I think this point is key to consider and I may revise the analysis later to include the effect of a +4 strength item at this level.



At level 18
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 22, DEX 10, CON 16.  Avg hp = 153

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +5 greatsword he is +30/+25/+20/+15 to hit and 2d6+13 (avg. 20, total 80) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +12/+7/+2/-3 to hit, and 2d6+31 (avg. 38, total 152) damage via power attack. Can't hit the broad side of a barn of course. However we know at this point however he can expect to be using power attack more regularly.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 22, CON 14 Avg hp = 135

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +5 mighty composite longbow and +5 arrows the archer is +35/+30/+25/+20 to hit and 1d8+12 (avg 16.5, total 49.5) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +33/+33/+28/+23/+18 at 1d8+15 dmg (avg 19.5 ea, 97.5 combined). 

Analysis: The damage gap actually shrunk, since you can't get better than a +5 arrow which the archer had earlier. Also if you throw the strength item into the mix, I think the gap is even smaller.

There's a lot more work that could be done here, but overall I don't think there's the problem that some people are convinced there is.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 6, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> Well, to limit the repetitiveness... i wont go into how these tactics work against melee guys, where the troll is taking full attacks, including possible rend, instead of single attacks plus AoO. *




Actually they don't work nearly as well against the melee guy for several reasons.

1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18.

2. Since the tripped archer is stuck in melee with the troll/etc (Round 1 partial attack: trip. Round 1 archer stand up, retreat, provoke AoO, tripped again. Round 2 full attack on (prone) archer. Round 2 archer: stand up, retreat, provoke AoO, tripped, rinse lather repeat), the archer is equally vulnerable to rends and other special attacks. Actually, because of the typically lower AC of an archer, archers are actually more vulnerable to these.

3. Melee fighters can attack from prone at -4. If they have the prone attack feat, they may stand up as a free action after the first hit. Archers cannot attack from prone. (A minor difference to be sure but significant at higher levels where a character might have 3 to 6 attacks per round).

4. Most significantly, a troll or other large bad guy pursuing this tactic against a melee fighter loses the possibility of a rend. (Round 1 Troll: Move, partial attack trip. Round 1 Melee: Stand up [MEA] Partial Attack. Round 2 Troll: Full attack--trip, claw, bite. (No rend possible). Round 2 Melee: stand up [MEA], Partial Attack. Rinse Lather repeat).

Suffice it to say that an archer in this situation is significantly worse off than a melee fighter.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 6, 2002)

Zad, good comparison but I've one quick comment to add about this and a lot of other comparisons I'm seeing. By the 10th level comparison, your method of comparison favors the archer. You're not comparing an archer on his or her own to a greatsword fighter on his or her own. You're comparing an archer with a 3rd or 4th level buff spell (GMW) cast for him to a greatsword fighter without any outside help.

If you have two characters, all else being equal and one has a 3rd or 4th level buff up and the other doesn't, you would expect the buffed character to be superior not equal.

In order to make the comparison more even, you should give the greatsword fighter either a haste spell (3rd level but short duration) or an empowered Bull's Strength spell (4th level long duration and therefore equivalent to a GMW spell from a cleric). I think that changing the comparison by allowing the Greatsword fighter buffs as well would dramatically change the results.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 6, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> Well, to limit the repetitiveness... i wont go into how these tactics work against melee guys, where the troll is taking full attacks, including possible rend, instead of single attacks plus AoO. *




Actually they don't work nearly as well against the melee guy for several reasons.

1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18.

 [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you can use str or dex to avoid the trip.  Bull rush is a str only resistence though.  So yes a mellee fighter is jsut as vulnerable except for the minor feature that he can attack rpone somewhat beter than the archer.(the archer just drops his bow and pulls out a sword)


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

"Also if you throw the strength item into the mix, I think the gap is even smaller."

Throwing only strength items in skews the results.

Give the fighter +4 strength gauntlets for 16k and he gains +2 to hit and +3 damage.

Give the Archer +2 Gloves of dex for 4000 and bracers of Archery for 5100 and he gains +3 hit and +1 damage (within 30') and this ignores the +1 to Ac, reflex saves and the like. 

******

You highlight the difference in HP, but the difference in saves is significant too.

Dex 10 Con 16 produces for an 18th level fighter fort save of +14 and a reflex save of +6

Dex 22 and Con 14 produces a fort save of +13 and a reflex save of +12.

I would tend to point out that once you move out of combat comparisons and into the realm of overall participation and hp totals, that the difference between a +12 and +6 on reflex saves is not something to just be passed by. The effective difference of a single failed save against a fireball is going to make up and more the HP difference.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

"1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18."

IIRC the resisting character can use the higher of his str or dex to resist a trip attack.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm going to give a short anecdote that will bring this discussion away from the numbers.

For a number of years I was a very active participant in the SCA. Now I'm not about to say that SCA sport combat is a match for what we play out in D&D, but I did carry away a few lessons that have greatly helped me put arguments like this into perspective.

I have always enjoyed being a shieldman in a large scale melee - nothing much made me happier than carrying a huge scutum sized shield and marching directly at the enemy front. I always had a good view of what was going on, and have always liked being in the press.

In large melees like that, the number of enemy troops I personally brought down was never very large. I was never able to walk away from a large battle where I could say 'Wow, I took down over a dozen of those guys!' Instead, I became what I term a "movable wall."

Basically, I would partner up with one or more buddies with a long weapon (like a reach weapon), who would then fight over top of me. My job, instead of 'killing the enemy,' became 'keep this guy alive.' 

On the days when my polearmsman and I clicked, we might walk off the field with 2 to 3 dozen 'kills' between us. When I partnered with an combat archer, the number rose higher. Together, we were far more effective than either of us would have been alone.

So what's my point, you ask?

D&D is a team sport. The lizardman barbarian who started out this thread is likely more efficient partnering with the archer and keeping that archer alive than trying to 'dish out the damage.' Judicious use of a defensive posture may not make it any easier for the barbarian to cause massive amounts of hp damage, but without the tank in front of them, archers become far less effective.

So take on for the team - besides, any kill caused by someone your character directly protects is half yours!


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 6, 2002)

Actually he did figure in the GMW on the greatsword. The reason the fighter did not get a second is it does him no good. Thats one of the points being highlighted... that GMW stacks for archers and does not for melee.

If you want to run comparisons assuming each character gets an identical set of buffs, that is an interesting idea but in as much as it is not what happens in play, it is fairly useless.

i have NEVER seen a mage decide on buffing by dint of "how many levels have i thrown on so and so versus this other guy. They throw the best spells they can and as many as they can afford. its not a case of "do you get GMW or bull strength" its a case of how many can i spare and bull strength is not competing with GMW.

IN PLAY, in my game here is what happens.

The night before, when they are ready for bed, the 12th level sor with extend hands out a number of GMWx (24 hours) and uses his last couple GMW-X on arrows. they then divide the arrows up, most going to the archer. Every fighter type gets one weapon GMWed and they divy up about 100 arrows. i think this burns 6 4th level spells and since he has something like 8 fourth, 6 fifth and 3 sixth this is not really a hardship. The spell slots will be recovered by morning so the loss of spells only really is felt for about a 9 hour period.

He also burns a number of second level buffs... endurance is his spell of choice, iirc, as extended versions as well. The fighter is already in gauntlets +4 for strength so a buff of bs would not help (much, if at all.)

So while for a theoreticcal comparison, mathcing up spell levels of buffing would be interesting, it does not match the way things go in the game. there is no mechanism active in the game to force this parity and the system encourages doubling up on the archer because of the stacking issue.

IF the rules were changed to allow a melee weapon to get two stacking GMWs, then the comparison should include one or two GMW for each, because thats what they would be going for.

i think, overall, this is one of the reasons so many have seemed amenable to changing bow and arrow stacking



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Zad, good comparison but I've one quick comment to add about this and a lot of other comparisons I'm seeing. By the 10th level comparison, your method of comparison favors the archer. You're not comparing an archer on his or her own to a greatsword fighter on his or her own. You're comparing an archer with a 3rd or 4th level buff spell (GMW) cast for him to a greatsword fighter without any outside help.
> 
> If you have two characters, all else being equal and one has a 3rd or 4th level buff up and the other doesn't, you would expect the buffed character to be superior not equal.
> 
> In order to make the comparison more even, you should give the greatsword fighter either a haste spell (3rd level but short duration) or an empowered Bull's Strength spell (4th level long duration and therefore equivalent to a GMW spell from a cleric). I think that changing the comparison by allowing the Greatsword fighter buffs as well would dramatically change the results. *


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 6, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *I would tend to point out that once you move out of combat comparisons and into the realm of overall participation and hp totals, that the difference between a +12 and +6 on reflex saves is not something to just be passed by. The effective difference of a single failed save against a fireball is going to make up and more the HP difference. *




True but location makes a big difference in terms of area effect spells as well. It's much harder to catch a melee fighter in a fireball without also injuring ones' allies than it is to catch the clump of archer and wizard (and possibly cleric) who are staying out of melee.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 6, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> * I think you can use str or dex to avoid the trip.  Bull rush is a str only resistence though.  So yes a mellee fighter is jsut as vulnerable except for the minor feature that he can attack rpone somewhat beter than the archer.(the archer just drops his bow and pulls out a sword) *




Mea culpa on the str or dex to resist trip attacks. That's my error. However if the archer chooses to drop his bow and draw a greatsword, he will still be much worse off than the melee fighter for several reasons:

1. The troll or whatever gets an unanswered full attack on him because after standing up and switching weapons, the archer is unable to attack without quickdraw (Stand up [MEA] draw sword [MEA]).

2. The archer most likely lacks the feats and stats to effectively take the troll or whatever on in melee. Assuming that the archer has an 18 strength and a 22 dex after buffs and items, the melee character probably has a 24 strength (since he only needs one attribute buffed) as well as weapon focus and specialization and probably at least 2 effective plusses more on his melee weapon. In this case, the melee fighter has a +6 attack bonus advantage over the archer and a +6 per hit damage bonus advantage over the archer--assuming that they're both wielding the same weapon.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 6, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Actually he did figure in the GMW on the greatsword. The reason the fighter did not get a second is it does him no good. Thats one of the points being highlighted... that GMW stacks for archers and does not for melee.
> *





In that case, he figured in two GMW spells for the archer and only one for the greatsword fighter.



> *
> If you want to run comparisons assuming each character gets an identical set of buffs, that is an interesting idea but in as much as it is not what happens in play, it is fairly useless.
> *





That's quite true but it also reveals something of the nature of the complaint. If the melee fighter got Stoneskin, Empowered Bull's Strength, and Haste every fight and the archer got no buffs, we'd be hearing about how useless archers are in comparison to the melee combat gods. So, if the practice of the party is to buff the archer until he glows like a Christmas tree on the detect magic radar and toss the occasional bone to the melee fighter, you can equally expect that the archer is going to shine more in combat. The party wizard and cleric didn't just spend a half dozen spells for nothing.



> *
> i have NEVER seen a mage decide on buffing by dint of "how many levels have i thrown on so and so versus this other guy. They throw the best spells they can and as many as they can afford. its not a case of "do you get GMW or bull strength" its a case of how many can i spare and bull strength is not competing with GMW.
> 
> IN PLAY, in my game here is what happens.
> ...





Of course, if the fighter were willing to rely on buffs, he could avoid spending 16k on those gauntlets and get an empowered extended bull's strength (5th level) every evening which would often be better than the belt. When the sorceror is able to do a double empowered bull's strength spell, it will be dramatically better.

Your group sounds like they're pretty canny players and know what they're doing. They obviously use their magic to help each character succeed in their role. (Endurance makes the melee fighter much more resilient and more able to stop villains from getting to the archer). If it works that's no reason to be surprised. However, it's also no reason to suppose that the roles chosen for the various members of the group (the archer deals damage and the melee fighter primarily sucks up the hits is what it sounds like) are the only roles the system makes possible to choose.



> *
> So while for a theoreticcal comparison, mathcing up spell levels of buffing would be interesting, it does not match the way things go in the game. there is no mechanism active in the game to force this parity and the system encourages doubling up on the archer because of the stacking issue.
> 
> IF the rules were changed to allow a melee weapon to get two stacking GMWs, then the comparison should include one or two GMW for each, because thats what they would be going for.
> ...




I can see your point and don't think it would break the game to eliminate bow/arrow enhancement stacking. However, I don't think it's necessary either.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 7, 2002)

Thanks, Zad.  I was hoping you'd run the numbers.   This shows me what I wanted to see, in general numbers.  It goes a long way to reassuring me that, under the core system with relatively few modifications, the archers are not unbalanced with the pure melee fighter, overall.

Now, since I'm Zad's DM, he's got a vested interest, but that's not really the issue.   I also know that if Zad thought they were truly unbalanced, he'd be the first to point it out.  We have rules discussions over various things constantly.

My main goal is to never penalize my players for using the system correctly, unless the system specifically reveals itself to be broken.  My goal is that every character have opportunities to showcase their particular abilities, and have a chance to shine.  My concern was that archery was getting in the way of that.  Now I realize that there are ways to tweak the archer here to much greater effectiveness.  In point of fact, you can ask Rackhir about his FTR/BRB/OOBI, a marvel of archer efficiency (and remade a second time in a different game, I believe).

This reinforces my belief that D&D 3E is one of the best RPGs I've been lucky enough to play in my 22+ years of gaming.


----------



## Zad (Dec 7, 2002)

I was a little rushed finishing the comparison as I was heading out the door from work. I'll try to clean it up monday. However I'd have the night to think about it. And this is what I realized

1. The archer does more damage
2. This is offset somewhat by power attack. You *cannot* make any meaningful comparison between the two without including power attack in the comparison.
3. In exchange for a little less damage the swordsman

Threatens hexes
Gets attacks of opportunity (hence does more damage)
Can sunder/trip/etc
Can cleave
Can subdue

That, people, is called *balance*. 

You can argue that a given prestige class is unbalanced. You can argue that some bizzare feat chain is unbalanced. But this comparison has convinced me that the basics of archery damage IS balanced against melee damage.

And you can bet your bippy I'm gonna repost this every time this argument comes up again (i.e. every three weeks)


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 7, 2002)

We've had this arguement before, and I doubt we are going to fix anything.   Sure, there are problems with archers, but I don't think that the problems nearly counter balance the advantages in range, extra attacks, extra attacks when moving, stacked enhancement bonuses, and superior selection of (broken) prestige classes.  For every restriction on archery there is a corresponding feat/item/spell that more than elimenates the problem.

I think D&D has reached the point where the ultimate party consists of a balanced variaty of twinked out archery characters.   A party of 6 archer twinks of various flavors (elven cleric, order of the bow initiates, arcane archers, peerless archers, fighter/thieves with archery feat chains, etc.) could dish out nearly 1000 damage per round at everything in sight by the time they reach the upper levels.  There is nothing in the game that can survive that - not even close.  Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it.  Sure, maybe I could stick to nothing but Kraken's ambushing the players at close range in order to punish them for being so powerful, but that is going to get really silly after a while.


----------



## James McMurray (Dec 7, 2002)

> Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it




While making pincushions out of their friend as well, considering that grappled people have a 50/50 chnce of being the target of a ranged attack.


----------



## bret (Dec 7, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> In order to make the comparison more even, you should give the greatsword fighter either a haste spell (3rd level but short duration) or an empowered Bull's Strength spell (4th level long duration and therefore equivalent to a GMW spell from a cleric). I think that changing the comparison by allowing the Greatsword fighter buffs as well would dramatically change the results. *




I disagree.

Because the magical bow doesn't penetrate DR, as a Wizard or Sorcerer I'm more likely to use GMW on arrows. I might split the arrows between multiple people as well.

I'll give the fighter a Dex boost if they aren't already maxed out. The Strength is usually already enhanced by an item. There are other buff spells as well, Haste will often go to the fighter that is playing interceptor on any unfriendly that might attack me. Funny how that works.   

When I play an arcane caster, whom I use buff spells on depends partly on what the other characters are and what items they have. It also can be affected by how much of a team player they are and the viewpoint of the particular character I'm running.

One thing is pretty constant. Those that protect my mage have a much better chance of getting the buff spells than those who allow critters to get into melee with my mage. I really like people with reach weapons.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 7, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I think D&D has reached the point where the ultimate party consists of a balanced variaty of twinked out archery characters.   A party of 6 archer twinks of various flavors (elven cleric, order of the bow initiates, arcane archers, peerless archers, fighter/thieves with archery feat chains, etc.) could dish out nearly 1000 damage per round at everything in sight by the time they reach the upper levels.  There is nothing in the game that can survive that - not even close.  Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it.  Sure, maybe I could stick to nothing but Kraken's ambushing the players at close range in order to punish them for being so powerful, but that is going to get really silly after a while. *




So it appears that what you're actually saying is that the core archer is just fine, but select feats, items, spells, and prestige classes from non-core material breaks that balance, correct?  That, to me, is an entirely different problem.  I personally think classes like the OoBI and others are more of the problem, not the actual archery rules, based on the discussion seen here.


----------



## Pax (Dec 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Monsters with low to no inteligence are just as easy, if not easier to justify a fight.  "the pack of ____ run twords you, hunger in their eyes."  Do not presume to tell me what the percentage of encounters should be for inteligent and non-inteligent for my campaign.  If you don't know that this changes from campaign to campaign, you have a larger problem.*




Most animals, or similar-intelligence "monsters", won't atytack a party of armed (demi)humans.  Just like, in real life, most of the time wolves do NOT attack people on sight.

They'd have to be desperately hungry, and even then ... that unarmed farmer (Commoner (2) or (3)) and his family are much better targets than armed and armored PCs.

IOW, no, _"the pack of ____ run twords you, hunger in their eyes"_ just doesn't cut it as a well-reasoned encounter.  That *is* "menagerie of new and more exciting monsters" in action ...



> *I don't see you point any way, since you state that inteligent foes should be a minority of the encounters seen.*




A *significant* minority -- and frankly, a *majority* of COMBAT encounters.



> *I hope you don't believe combat reflexes should be included in every inteligent creature encounter, as that would get repeditive.*




I'm not even sure why you're obsessed with combat reflexes, anyway.  even with it, a given characetr (PC or NPC) can only AoO the same enemy once per round, no matter how many times they trigger it.



> *So this discussion of trick inteligent creatures isn't the most helpful.  Ditto spell casters.  If wanted to make encounters screw archers, I easily could.  I want to find times when the melee has advantage and isn't simply meat to be ground up.*




Yet you specificaly deny any and all scenarios presented to you which do JUST that.

Parked in a featureless, terrainless, obstacle-less arena, of bloody *course* archery is superior to melee.

In practise, however, circumstances are not normally so favorable to ranged combatants in SMALL-group encounters.  Especially not in the (IME) typical scenario, where the PC's are outnumbered, often 4 or even 5 to 1 ... !!



> *More tatics for the minority.
> 
> Not even a large perchent of those will take exotic weapons.  Mounted characters are something, however.  Most mounts I can think of, unless you are taking about dragons, don't have reach, the rider does.  Ok, a minor point.  But the tatic is shut down by a tumble check, DC15, which isn't that hard to get.*




Then armor spikes and a reach weapon.  Lizardfolk with longspears ... and their bite.

Big enemies, like Ogres.  Maybe even ... ogres with OGRE-scale longspears (reach ON TOP of reach!!).



> *The ready action trick is good.  This is the first tatic I can remember in this thread that really socks it to archers.  Ok, that's good.  Now how often can I use it?  First, requires inteligent foes, the minority.  Next, you need haste, which should be a minority of inteligent encounters.*




Or expert tactician, and deny the archer their dex bonus to AC (a blinkspell, or Ring of Blinking, would do this nicely).



> *Then, the melee man must get to the archer, which my involve AoOs.*




What's worse, an AO or two, or a few rounds of furhter Full Attack actions from the archer(s) ... ?



> *Finally, your melee man is using one attack a round when he has at least 2.*




Nope.  The first round, the melee NPC uses a partial charge (1 attack), then a ready action.

Every round after that, unless the archer can out-distance or grossly out-maneuver the melee NPC, he FULL ATTACKS, and then readies again.



> * A fellow PC meleer should be able to make mince meat of him as he widdles me down, or better a fellow archer.  On top of all that, I can avoid most attacks by double moving away, and the melee machine may not even be able to charge me. 1 for 1 isn't always the best trade for NPCs, especially if they are using up a decent level spell.*




Ii you double-move, you don't attack -- and the melee fellow gets his AoO against you (for leaving the threatened area, and doing more than a single move ... sucks to be the archer).  Then, normal charge (up to double movement) and attack, then ready again.  Presuming the odds are at least 1:1 (NPC to PC), the melee PC's may be too damned BUSY to help the archer PC.



> *How is it harder for the archer to make that exact same manuver and still have the advantage of shooting the enemy from the door rather than being forced to charge him?  You have shown only that archery can be used against archery, and it is STILL in the minority of inteligent creature combats.*




As for the orc behind the wall trick: simple ... right inside the door, the orc has a melee FRIEND.  The archer moves to avoid the wall, teh archer takes readied attacks form the melee orc.  If the archer stays there, s/he sucks full attacks and AoO's from said melee orc.

Melee PC's, OTOH, are often designed to be able to TAKE that sort of thing,a nd deal with it quite happily (i.e., maneuver to put the melee orc in the archer-orc's LOS, gettign cover and in-melee penalties into play in the PC's -favor- ... until the melee orc drops, ofc).



> *Goblins, orcs, kobolds, gnolls and hobgoblins all use the same concept.*




Um, do your enemies simply come out with UPC barcodes on them, waiting for the next PC group to happen by and slaughter them?

STORY, man.  MOTIVATION.  One group of goblins is NOT the same as a group of gnolls.  *Where* are they, *why* are they there, and so on.



> *I was making the point that fighting the same thing as you go up in level can get boring, especially if concept is a horde of weak creatures with a few leaders.*




Yep, sounding more and more like "menagerie of exotic creatures" to me.  Are your encounters arrayed the same as the "monsters by CR" list in the back of the MM?



> *That isn't the point here.  You were saying that goblin (weak) creatures should be more common than powerful (dragon) so the fact that there are a lot of melee creatures is irrelevant, because weak creatures can be advanced and attack using massed archery.*




Actually, goblins would have numbers enough to use combined-arms tactics.  Maybe 20% to 25% of their number in the archers-and-spellcasters department, the rest in the up-close-and-personal department.



> *This has a problem: you are saying use archery which seems to say that it is good.*




Using archery against the PC's changes the tactics in use.  Direct archery fire against enemy ranged units, while your toe-to-toe fighters close with *their* counterparts.  That's pretty much the most standard of the ultra-*basic* tactics.



> *That is my point, it is always good to be on the side with the archer except a rare extreem like high wind.*




High wind is not as rare as you seem to think it is.  A gusty, windy day -- suitable for good kite flying -- is in some places the NORM, and it screws royally with archery.



> *I also like to use different creatures, and there are more melee monsters to choose from.  On top of that, you agreed that inteligent creatures should be in the minority of encounters.*




*SIGNIFICANT* minority.  As in, 40% or more.  Undead should fill that out a bit (and skeletons can nearly ignore archers!).



> *On a side note, calling an argument sundry,*




"Sundry" means "various":



> _from the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:_
> Main Entry: 1sun·dry
> Pronunciation: 's&n-drE
> Function: adjective
> ...






> *statement such as "I'm sorry, but I have to ask -- have you grown out of ....",*




An honest question; IME, most (if not all) GM's go through that hase.  I did, all my friends did; most of us grew out of that phase, some of us never did.  I don't think you'd fit into the former group ... you seem more and more to fit with the latter.



> *and  'My you have a well-trained "selective comprehension" skill, don't you?'*




You DO seem to have that skill with a large number of ranks; you've taken *part* of some statements, misconstrued otehrs entirely, discounted perfectly reasonable answers ... IOW, you have *displayed* a well-developed ability to apply selective comprehension.  I merely observed that fact.



> *only show your lack of etiquite and you are only here for demeaning others.  I don't think they add anything, and take focus away from the discussion. *




Only here for demeaning others?  No; I'm here to engage in debate on the rules of the d20 system.  I only demean those who indicate, in various ways, they rather -deserve- it; you have, in this thread.  And you caught all of ONE disrespectful comment (while taking needless offense at another, honest question).

One might ask why you are online at all, if you are *that* thin-skinned ... ?


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 8, 2002)

"While making pincushions out of their friend as well, considering that grappled people have a 50/50 chnce of being the target of a ranged attack."

Well, barring a quote otherwise I'm not aware of, I guess as a DM I'm within my rights to assign an equal chance of hitting a gargantuan (or colossal or whatever) creature and the medium sized creature that he has buried beneath his tentacles, but I think my players might rightfully think that I'm being more than a little unfair if I did so.   Such a rule makes a bit of sence if two medium sized creatures are rolling around on the ground, but as you are using it, it is just a kludge to fix a different problem.

WizardDru: Well, I'm saying at least two things.  First, I'm saying that multishot and order of the bow initiate are highly broken, and peerless archers and deepwoods archers are slightly broken, and that in combination all these broken things added to what was already a powerful concept (an archer) make for some serious problems.
      Secondly, I'm saying that even without the clearly balance wrecking things above, that the archer concept is just a little too optimal.   Rapid shot is one of the best feats in the game, and you have to ask yourself, why does D&D persist in allowing missile attacks (with a bow) to be done more often than melee attacks, given the ubsurdity of such a thing and the fact that no other system allows that.  Quite the contrary, GURPS for example makes it almost impossible to attack as often with a bow as you may with a balanced melee weapon.   Don't you think if you are going to be drawing an arrow, knocking it to a bow, drawing the bow, taking aim and firing, that a melee fighter is going to get quite a few good swings in on you in that time?   AoO go a little ways to solve this problem, but with 5' steps they are quite easily avoided, and the melee fighter is forced to do some quite complex meta-gaming (as is being discussed here) to get around the weaknesses in the rules and simply get the attacks he clearly deserves.   I defy anyone, know matter how good they are with the bow, to draw knock and comfortably fire a longbow while I'm taking swings at them with a baseball bat or katana.   Yet, the archer is under no particular penalty to hit when so engaged.   Then on top of that, the enhancement bonuses of arrows and bows stack, allowing archers to have comparitively higher BAB's.   And on top of that, the standard weapon feats stack with the archery feat chains, so that you can have both accurate shot AND weapon focus which only increases the lead the archer has.  Why isn't thier an accurate blow feat?  Why isn't thier a rapid attack feat?  Isn't it because such feats would be clearly too good?  Then why do we assume archers need such extra feats?  Is it because a ranged weapon is so useless?

I'm not saying rapid shot needs to be done away with, only that maybe the penalties for being an archer in base to base contact with a melee attacker maybe aren't large enough.

As a DM I find that a few good archers is the cure for any number of ills.   Flying monsters?  No problem, just keep your distance.   Monsters with gaze attacks?  No problem, just keep your distance.   Any monster with a dangerous attack?  No problem, just keep your distance.  Spell casters?  No problem, just ready your weapon.  Difficult terrain or barriers?  No problem, I wanted to keep my distance anyway.  Monsters with missile weapons of thier own?  Yikes! Scary, but no better solution than a better missile weapon of your own.   There is no end of tactical problems that I've tried to throw at parties that was solved simply by filling the threat full of arrows (often in the first round or two).  It gets to be pretty uncinematic and anticlimatic.

Yes, there are a few counters to archers that when they work control the problem fairly well, but why should I make every encounter one that cripples the archer?  What fun is that for me or the archer?  And if I don't make encounters designed to cripple the archers, I'm pretty certain that in most cases the collective archery fire of the party is going to make it a non-event in a hurry - the more so if the party were to ever decide to twink out.

I'm not saying the sky is falling or anything, just thinking that maybe the -4 'into melee' penalty should applied when the target is threatening the archer and not just an ally of something like that (that and certain prestige classes were not good ideas).


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2002)

Best idea is don't let your players twink out.  Yah, i know, it must be the annoying DM in me. 

secondly, you can just say that any archer that was the target of a melee attack last round can only get one shot off this round.  helps get rid of all the silliness cele discribed.. again, that's just the annoying DM in me.

joe b.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 8, 2002)

"Nope. The first round, the melee NPC uses a partial charge (1 attack), then a ready action."

Unless I'm really confused, there are a couple of problems with that.  First, I didn't think you could just elect to take a partial action.   If you could, what is to stop you from taking two partial attacks?  I thought you could only take a partial action if circumstances required it (see PH page 127).   

Secondly, there is no such thing as a partial ready action.  The ready action is a standard action, just like an attack action.  (see PH page 134 and Table 8-4 on page 128).  The ready action allows you (indeed forces you) to take a partial action, but it is not itself a partial action.  So, even if you could elect to take a partial charge, you can't take a partial charge and a ready action on the same round unless you are hasted.   Again, if you could take a partial charge and follow it up with a standard action, why not follow your partial charge up with a standard attack action to get an extra attack?


----------



## Lela (Dec 8, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Rapid shot is one of the best feats in the game, and you have to ask yourself, why does D&D persist in allowing missile attacks (with a bow) to be done more often than melee attacks, given the ubsurdity of such a thing and the fact that no other system allows that. Quite the contrary, GURPS for example makes it almost impossible to attack as often with a bow as you may with a balanced melee weapon. Don't you think if you are going to be drawing an arrow, knocking it to a bow, drawing the bow, taking aim and firing, that a melee fighter is going to get quite a few good swings in on you in that time?*




Archers can hold more than one arrow in their hands.  Someone good with their fingers can flip an arrow into place lightening fast.  I've seen thing (in RL, don't claim I saw in a movie).

And as long as we're talking about movies, have you even seen LotR?  Don't tell me an archer can't go quickly after that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2002)

> *Every round after that, unless the archer can out-distance or grossly out-maneuver the melee NPC, he FULL ATTACKS, and then readies again.*




Uh... you can't ready a full attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 8, 2002)

Lela: I can only shake my head in disbelief at a post like that.  I fear there isn't much I can say to that.  If you can't recognize that firing an arrow faster than you can swing a sword is ridiculous IRL, I can't help you.  Sometime get your bow out and get a guy with a foam sword to swing at you while you are trying to fire.  Or try to scramble backwards while firing while the same guy is trying (trying? HA!) to run you down with a sword.

Not that it matters to this discussion at all, but for the record, yes I've seen the movie.  (Have you seen the movie?  What a laugh.)

Hypersmurf:  Overlooked that one.  Yes, you can't ready a full attack action.  Which brings up things like multishot.   My archer can move backwards (or sideways, it doesn't matter so long as I can get at least 10' from you) and fire arrows continiously, and the best you can do is try to keep up and make an occasional one swing per round.   Why did someone think a multishot feat was a good idea?  Would someone publish a feat like 'Springing Full Attack: You can take a move equivalent action and a full attack action on the same round.'   How about 'Springing Charge Attack: You can combine a charge attack with a full attack action'.   Wouldn't those be a great feat?  Think of the tactical possibilities it would open up!  Wow, the mind boggles!  l33t!!!!!!!!!!

Bah.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2002)

> *How about 'Springing Charge Attack: You can combine a charge attack with a full attack action'.   Wouldn't those be a great feat?  Think of the tactical possibilities it would open up!  *




The ability is "Pounce" - look up some of the big cats in the Monster Manual for an example.  It's not available as a feat, but some PrCs get it, I believe.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pax (Dec 8, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *"Nope. The first round, the melee NPC uses a partial charge (1 attack), then a ready action."
> 
> Unless I'm really confused, there are a couple of problems with that.  First, I didn't think you could just elect to take a partial action.   If you could, what is to stop you from taking two partial attacks?  I thought you could only take a partial action if circumstances required it (see PH page 127).   *




The tactic presupposes some means of getting an extra partial action -- _Haste_, the Expert Tactician feat, or somethng of a similar nature.



> *Secondly, there is no such thing as a partial ready action.  The ready action is a standard action, just like an attack action.*




And Partial Actions are "anything you dould do in a round, using a standard action, but without a MEA" ... so yes, a partial action CAN be used to Ready.  




> * (see PH page 134 and Table 8-4 on page 128).  The ready action allows you (indeed forces you) to take a partial action, but it is not itself a partial action.*




See above.

Or better, PHB, page 127, entry "Partial Actions":



> [...] Partial actions are like standard actions, except that you can't do as much with a partial action as you can with a standard action.
> As a general rule, you can do as much with a partial action as you can with a standard action minus a move.  Thus, you can attack once as a partial action _or_ move your speed, but you can't both move and attack.







> *So, even if you could elect to take a partial charge,*




In fact you *can* choose to take a partial action ... PHB, same entry on page 127, *emphasis* mine:



> *Usually* you don't take a partial action because you elect to, [...]







> *you can't take a partial charge and a ready action on the same round unless you are hasted.*




You can't take two partial actions in a round without a bonus partial action, anyway.  Charges or not.  However, again: the tactic presupposed some means of gaining just that -- a bonus partial action.



> * Again, if you could take a partial charge and follow it up with a standard action, why not follow your partial charge up with a standard attack action to get an extra attack? *




Because, against n archer, readying to keep them in threatened range is likely to be more efficient than a single attack (give up one attack, to ensure -- short of being outrun -- you can make a FULL attack, and re-ready again ...).


----------



## Pax (Dec 8, 2002)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Uh... you can't ready a full attack.
> 
> -Hyp. *




Of course not.  You ready a MOVE, triggered by the arhcer leaving your threatened zone -- themove being, to KEEP teh archer Threatened.

*sigh*

Look, it's like this:

Round one, Melee Grunt:
... Standard-and-MEA action: Charge archer (one attack at +2 to hit, then -2 AC until next action)
... Partial action: Ready "If <target> moves, move with <target>, attemptignto keep <target> in one of my threatened squares"

Round one, Archer:
... Full Round Action: 5-foot step *1* and full-attack *2*

*1* -- triggers Grunt's move; Archer remains threatened!
*2* -- triggers Attack of Opportunity from Grunt (Ranged attack from threatened square)

Round two, Melee Grunt:
... Full round action: Full attack, and optioonal 5-foot step for tactical maneuvering
... Partial action: Ready "If <target> moves, move with <target>, attemptignto keep <target> in one of my threatened squares"

Round two, Archer:
... Full Round Action: 5-foot step *1* and full-attack *2*

*1* -- triggers Grunt's move; Archer remains threatened!
*2* -- triggers Attack of Opportunity from Grunt (Ranged attack from threatened square)

Round three, Melee Grunt:
... Full round action: Full attack, and optioonal 5-foot step for tactical maneuvering
... Partial action: Ready "If <target> moves, move with <target>, attemptignto keep <target> in one of my threatened squares"

Round three, Archer:
... Full Round Action: 5-foot step *1* and full-attack *2*

*1* -- triggers Grunt's move; Archer remains threatened!
*2* -- triggers Attack of Opportunity from Grunt (Ranged attack from threatened square)

Any round in which the archer double-moves (only), reset the entire process to Round One.  Otherwise ... lather, rinse, *repeat*.  So long as the melee grunt can keep up with the archer, and maintain the needed extra partial actions ... the archer is in TROUBLE.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2002)

> *Any round in which the archer double-moves (only), reset the entire process to Round One.  Otherwise ... lather, rinse, repeat.  So long as the melee grunt can keep up with the archer, and maintain the needed extra partial actions ... the archer is in TROUBLE. *




Ah.  The fact that the melee grunt is hasted was buried somewhere way back in the thread.

Of course, we need to assume that the archer is hasted also.  Which means for every Full Attack + 1 AoO the melee grunt gets, the archer is getting Full Attack (w/ Rapid Shot) + 1 Manyshot.

The melee attacks will, presumably, do more damage... but there are going to be quite a few more arrows headed towards the grunt each round than sword swings towards the archer.

-Hyp.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 8, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Lela: I can only shake my head in disbelief at a post like that.  I fear there isn't much I can say to that.  If you can't recognize that firing an arrow faster than you can swing a sword is ridiculous IRL, I can't help you.  Sometime get your bow out and get a guy with a foam sword to swing at you while you are trying to fire.  Or try to scramble backwards while firing while the same guy is trying (trying? HA!) to run you down with a sword.
> 
> *




You forget that 1 attack does not equal one swing of a sword, but a series of attacks, parries, etc.  The attack roll is just a simplification of the whole process.  You can't equate the two.

Yes, you can swing a sword faster than you can shoot an arrow, but against someone actively defending himself, IRL you'd likely get through his guard less often with a melee weapon than with an arrow from range.

Once again I am reminded that "IRL" and "D&D" should never collide in the same sentence.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 9, 2002)

* Archer/melee duels of equal level do not describe a party during game play. *

This is because all encounters are against creatures of lower levels and lower damage and defense potential than the party. (That's the point of having a CR system.)


Example:

A party of 4 twinky level 7 characters will fight a CR 8 encounter and generally be okay. (Like 2 CR 6's, 3 CR 5's or 4 CR 4's)

In the case of one CR 8, the melee protects the casters by tanking, while the archer peppers the bad guy from afar, losing nothing.

In the case of a bunch of lower CRs, the melee protects the casters (as well as possible), while the archer concentrates on the one or two creatures that target him specifically. The low CR creatures die miserably after a couple Rapid Shots, and the archer loses nothing.

Other archtypes lose resources during each encounter (casters lose spells, melees lose hps), whereas archers rarely ever lose anything.


That is why I chose to nerf GMW and alter magic arrow prices. Archers now lose resources during every combat. They must ration their arrows, much like a caster rationing spells. (They also are now less reliant on having a caster as a necessity, though a healer is still important.)


----------



## Victim (Dec 9, 2002)

Wow, and people never use hard fights?  In my game, most of the encounters have an EL greater than the party level, except for the random style encounters.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 9, 2002)

Victim said:
			
		

> *Wow, and people never use hard fights?  In my game, most of the encounters have an EL greater than the party level, except for the random style encounters. *





Hence why I said:

"A party of 4 twinky level 7 characters will fight a CR 8 encounter"

This is a hard encounter if you are fighting approximately 4 CR 8 encounters (or more) a day.
.
.
.
If, on the other hand, you fight 1 encounter a day, then you are going to have to increase the difficulty to CR +2, +3 or beyond. However, the CR system breaks down using this, because the party could make one false move and end up with a TPW.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 9, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Hence why I said:
> 
> "A party of 4 twinky level 7 characters will fight a CR 8 encounter"
> 
> ...




Could you define 'twinky', please?  Seems to have different meanings to different people, and the meaning I tend to associate with it tends to invalidate your argument, so I'd rather hear what you mean by it.


----------



## Victim (Dec 9, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Hence why I said:
> ...





Not always.  If the group is a bunch of archers with movement boosting magic, then higher level dwarven melee fighters in full plate without S&S boots or fly won't be much of a threat if they come one at a time.  They'd only be a danger in a coordinated attack from multiple directions so to pin the group.

Similarly, if the group casts Fly, the # of encounters with ground pounders w/o ranged attacks doesn't matter as long as they are all within the duration.

Beyond raw CR, other factors have to be considered.  Some tactical situations aren't going to be threat to certain groups, and others overwhelming.


----------



## ascendance (Dec 9, 2002)

The problem is that your melee characters aren't properly twinked out relative to your archer characters.  One of them appears to be optimized for high AC, which, I suspect, severely limits his damage-dealing capability.  The other uses TWF, which is only useful for sneak attackers.  Real melee characters use 2-handed weapons.  Its the way the rules work.

Try this for a super-melee type:

Half-Orc Bbn.

Str 18 (or 20, if you are a cheesy type, and rolled an 18)
Dex 13

Everything else is secondary.

L1 Bbn 1: Exotic Weapon Prof: Spiked Chain.
L2 Ftr 1: Power Attack
L3 Ftr 2: Cleave, Power Lunge
L4 Bbn 2: +1 Str
L5 Ftr 3: Great Cleave
L6 Tribal Defender 1: Extra Rage, Weapon Focus: Spiked Chain
L7 Tribal Defender 2: Wild Fighting!!!! (This is the king of abilities for two-handed fighters.  It essentially allows them to Flurry)
L8 Fighter 4: Weapon Spec: Spiked Chain

This character has a tremendous amount of mobility and can do some serious damage.  The Power Lunge/Charge combo reaches the heights of cheesiness.  It has amazing amounts of tactical flexbility because of the Spiked Chain's reach.  This was what I was aiming for before my current game died.  GRRRRRR!!!!!!


----------



## LordAO (Dec 9, 2002)

In my experience, archers are not too powerful. There are plenty of things out there which are worse. However, if you feel differently, I have a couple of suggestions that might help.

1. Emphasise the ammunition problem. This is the greatest bane of an archer. Don't allow quivers of ehlonna and such in your game. If an archer can only carry 80 arrows, he'll be alot more conservative about using them. Much like a spellcaster must preserve spells. 

2. Use ambush effectively. Especially in tight quarters, this can be devastating. If archers are forced into melee once in a while, they will loose much of their advantage.

3. Don't stack the magic bows and arrows. Use the bows enchantment to affect the "to hit" and the arrow for damage.

Be careful about how far you go with this though, or you may end up neutering archers completely. The goal is to balance them; don't go too far the other direction either. Having a variety of battle scenarios will give everyone a chance to shine.


----------



## Lela (Dec 9, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Lela: I can only shake my head in disbelief at a post like that.  I fear there isn't much I can say to that.  If you can't recognize that firing an arrow faster than you can swing a sword is ridiculous IRL, I can't help you.  Sometime get your bow out and get a guy with a foam sword to swing at you while you are trying to fire.  Or try to scramble backwards while firing while the same guy is trying (trying? HA!) to run you down with a sword.
> 
> *




You make a good point.  As if D&D has anything to do with Fantasy.  I'll not mention such a radical concept again.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2002)

Olgar: 



> You forget that 1 attack does not equal one swing of a sword, but a series of attacks, parries, etc. The attack roll is just a simplification of the whole process. You can't equate the two.
> 
> Yes, you can swing a sword faster than you can shoot an arrow, but against someone actively defending himself, IRL you'd likely get through his guard less often with a melee weapon than with an arrow from range.




I'm not forgetting that at all (I've been playing this game 20 years) and in fact it is precisely my point.  

If I am attacking a guy with a bow, then I claim that one swing of the sword more or less coresponds to one 'attack' because there isn't going to need to be a whole series of attacks, feints, parryies, reposts leading up to the critical 'thrust'.   The guy with the bow simply can't actively protect himself in the same fashion as is persumed by the average abstract combat.  You can't equate the two - a guy with a sword attacking another guy with a sword is nothing like a guy with a sword hacking at a guy trying to line up a bow shot on the guy hacking at him with a sword.   The AoO is supposed to handle this, but as the number of attacks/round increases and the number of feats that increase arrow shots per round increase, the less important the AoO becomes and the more the melee attacker must rely on occassionally strange meta tactics - like grappling an archer is more dangerous than hitting him with the sword, or waiting on an archer to attempt to attack is more effective than relentlessly attacking, etc.  

While I might get through the guard of a guy with a sword less often than a guy with an arrow can fire (and that's debatable, see my next point), I won't get through the 'guard' of a guy with a bow less often than he can fire - you can gaurantee that. 

And if your answer to all of the above is, "Well, the guy with the bow is bobbing and weaving to avoid your attacks", how is it that at the very least he doesn't have a penalty to hit compared to when he does not need to bob and weave?

Furthermore, the 'abstract combat' arguement worked alot better for 1st edition D&D than it does for 3rd edition D&D.   Combat in 3rd edition D&D has been made relatively less abstract in several ways.   Most importantly, the length of a combat round has dropped from roughly 30 seconds to about 6 seconds.   While this is still more abstract than a GURPS 1 second round, we are definately moving closer to a concrete model.  Add to this the addition of combat manuevers and feats designed to represent certain actions in a round (feints, dodge, spring attack, fight defensively, and so forth), and you are moving closer to a system that is attempting to relate one action (or set of actions) to one round.  And it is clear that the reason D&D is doing this is that it wants to have a more satisfying combat system than the old 1st edition system which was so abstract as to be almost entirely non-cinematic/non-visual; not to mention 1st editions kludgy mechanics for handling players attempting to do things other than roll attack dice (grapple, take cover, retreat, etc.).

Again, I don't think that D&D penalizes a missile attacker nearly enough for having recieved melee attacks in the last round, or being in base to base contact with a melee attacker.  And, I also think that in general people have been too generous in creating feats and special powers for missile weapons specifically which are both additive with general weapon feats and above what would be considered appropriate for a general weapon feat/power.


----------



## Pax (Dec 9, 2002)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah.  The fact that the melee grunt is hasted was buried somewhere way back in the thread.
> 
> ...




I don't see it that way, not entirely.

As for spells -- if we use a weapon-and-shield, or two-handed-weapon, type of melee grunt ... the Archer has GMW on his bow, and GMW on his arrows.  Two spells to match would be haste on teh grunt, and GMW on his (single) weapon.

Alternately, if you want Haste/GMW/GMW for the archer, then, we go Haste/GMW/GMW on a TWF melee grunt, so the number of attacks aren't guaranteed to fall in favor of the archer.

Lastly: Haste isn't the only means to gain additional partial actions.  A Ring of Blinking and the Expert Tatician feat can do likewise (actually, the feat and -any- means of denying the Archer their Dexterity bonus to AC).  Frankly, finding a way to consistently apply the Expert Tactician would be preferable, as it would then allow greater use of Power Attack.


----------



## Pax (Dec 9, 2002)

ascendance said:
			
		

> *Try this for a super-melee type:
> 
> Half-Orc Bbn.
> 
> ...




If you can squeeze Combat Reflexes in there, that works VERY well with the Spiked Chain (or the Duom, an exotic longspear variant from _Sword and Fist_ -- nice because the first time you use it's 5'-rach ability, you get an added +2 to hit for pure surprise ... heh!).  Possibly at Character level 9, I guess.



> *This character has a tremendous amount of mobility and can do some serious damage.  The Power Lunge/Charge combo reaches the heights of cheesiness.  It has amazing amounts of tactical flexbility because of the Spiked Chain's reach.  This was what I was aiming for before my current game died.  GRRRRRR!!!!!! *




Spiked Chain / Duom, and Combat Reflexes (perhaps eventually Hold hte Line, _S&F_), work together well.  Consider them, if you ever get the chance to pursue your concept above in a later campaign.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 9, 2002)

> *Lastly: Haste isn't the only means to gain additional partial actions.  A Ring of Blinking and the Expert Tatician feat can do likewise (actually, the feat and -any- means of denying the Archer their Dexterity bonus to AC).*




Check your Expert Tactitian revision (Song and Silence, I believe).

An extra melee attack - no longer an extra partial action - would not allow you to do any readying.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pax (Dec 9, 2002)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Check your Expert Tactitian revision (Song and Silence, I believe).
> 
> ...




Oh, now that's (IMO) just an absolutely *silly* change for them to have made.

That's where I'dmake a GM call -- the extra action from the Expert Tactician would be a full partial action, but only applicable against the enemy whose DEX bonus to AC was denied.

After all, movement and countermovement is what tactics are *ABOUT* ... not how many times you can swing at them.  8P


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 9, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, now that's (IMO) just an absolutely silly change for them to have made.
> 
> ...




Expert Tactician is already way overpowered.  That's why they cut it down.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 9, 2002)

Pax said:
			
		

> *
> As for spells -- if we use a weapon-and-shield, or two-handed-weapon, type of melee grunt ... the Archer has GMW on his bow, and GMW on his arrows.  Two spells to match would be haste on teh grunt, and GMW on his (single) weapon.
> 
> Alternately, if you want Haste/GMW/GMW for the archer, then, we go Haste/GMW/GMW on a TWF melee grunt, so the number of attacks aren't guaranteed to fall in favor of the archer.
> *




Is that how it works in your campaign play?

Does your spellcaster(s) decide who to throw this and how to buff so-n-so based on the premise of "i must give each character the same number of levels of spells"?

Thats never how it works in my games. Guys get GMW, if available, based on benefit. if the mage has the spells, they give the archers two and the melee guy one, because thats how they benefit. Typically, they throw 1 GMW for ammo and its divided among the archers based on need. So its more like the archer got 1/3 of a third level spell if they bothered to count levels.

Then, when it comes to haste, they give them out again according to need and benefit. If one guy has a problem that NEEDS haste, like lower Ac or like very slow movement which will impeed his full attack chances, he usually gets the haste priority. After that, the typical determining factor is benefit, which boils down to damage done. Frankly, all the fighters weigh in after the mages here. A second full spell is worth more than an extra swing. 

In truth tho, this has not been the case for a while.

The haste comes from mass haste now.

The GMWs are extended spells cast the night before which last 24 hours with the spell slots regained in the morning.

So the net result is everyone has a GMW if they use weaponsand there are GMWed arrows passed around (i think my gang divvies 100 arrows nightly) and haste is done at the point of combat.

Regardless, i do not think i have ever heard even the hint that a spellcasting decision was based on "must spread even levels of spells per person" or anything like that.

Since one of the points in this comparison is the very fact that GMW stacks for bow/arrow and the "even spells" is not a common practice, at least as far as I know, I think the notion of providing the melee guy with some other spell kind of misses the point. 

YMMV and clearly does, particularly if in your games spells are provided to PCs by PCs based on "equitable levels" instead of other concerns.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 9, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> And, I also think that in general people have been too generous in creating feats and special powers for missile weapons specifically which are both additive with general weapon feats and above what would be considered appropriate for a general weapon feat/power. *




OK, I follow your argument (sword vs. bow rather than sword vs. sword) -- and in that case I agree with you.

I think the quote above, though, goes to the heart of the problem.  I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.

But I have yet to see an archery prestige class that I didn't consider broken, and the majority of 3rd party products (heck, even the WOTC splatbooks) have a lot of wonky abilities that screw up game balance.

You're dead on.  In previous editions, the rules set was so (comparitively) imprecise that house rules were the source of balance problems (or solutions).  Now, we've got a tighter rules set, but one that is easy to throw off kilter with what appear to be good additions (because someone published them), but that aren't necessarily any more good or bad than the house rules of the past.

Which is why, IMC, I restrict the rules set to the core books, and approve selective individual additions (feats, spells, PrCs) rather than entire sources.  Keeps balance in hand that way.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 9, 2002)

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Pressing the Attack feat (from Dragonstar and some other sources) is an excellent feat for dealing with archers and spellcasters.  You get to take an extra 5ft step whenever someone in your threat range takes a 5ft step (once per round) immediately.  Thus, if the archer takes a 5ft step back to avoid the AoO and get the full attack, you get to move up when he moves back so you still get the AoO, and then on your round you get the Full Attack of your own.  Thus, the melee fighter will end up with an extra attack per round over the archer.

IceBear


----------



## Lela (Dec 9, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Pressing the Attack feat (from Dragonstar and some other sources) is an excellent feat for dealing with archers and spellcasters.  You get to take an extra 5ft step whenever someone in your threat range takes a 5ft step (once per round) immediately.  Thus, if the archer takes a 5ft step back to avoid the AoO and get the full attack, you get to move up when he moves back so you still get the AoO, and then on your round you get the Full Attack of your own.  Thus, the melee fighter will end up with an extra attack per round over the archer.
> 
> IceBear *




A free 5-foot step every round?  Wow.  I hope that's all the feat does, cause that already smacks spell-casters.  Which was likely what it was intended for.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 9, 2002)

That's all it does.  Dragonstar is more missle weapon orientated than regular D&D, so this was likely added to help melee characters..  All it does it let you take a 5ft step when an opponent takes one.  When I said "free" I meant like the following:

Melee: Charges archer and attacks
Archer: 5ft step back to attack

Normally, because you moved, you aren't entitled to a 5ft step, but the feat overrides this, so....

Melee: Charges archer and attacks
Archer: 5ft Step back
Melee: 5ft step forward
Melee: AoO
Archer: Attacks.

Spellcasters could cast defensively to get around this, or stay out of melee combat 

IceBear


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 9, 2002)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> I think the quote above, though, goes to the heart of the problem.  I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.
> *




Actually most of my examples tens to use only those.

Archery uses Point blank shot and rapid fire and precise shot.
Both use focus and spec for their weapon.
GMW spell (with extend) is there to provide the enhancement bonuses to sword, bow and arrows to avoid typical "weapons availability issues" for all.

The only thing i commonly throw in from any other source, is the CHAIN feat from WOTC's tome and blood, which applies to GMW and removes the ubiquitous discussion of "how many GMWs can get passed around" which of course will vary between party to party by composition and circumstance. 

So, while other may like "many shot" from this, and bowman of the gods from third party product so-n-so and improved abundant cheese from third party "balanced games" as their examples... mine does not rely on such. 

The imbalance i perceieve, in play and in analysis, stems from the  double enhancement stacking and is exacerbated by low penalty for the rapid shot feats use to gain an extra attackextra attack. That is all core rules material.

So, while examples using the prestige class of the moment and third party feats from hell are favored by some, the fact that the Gm can so "no" to those "obvious cases" does not lead to the conclusion that these are the only problem. At least, not for me.


----------



## Pax (Dec 9, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is that how it works in your campaign play?
> 
> Does your spellcaster(s) decide who to throw this and how to buff so-n-so based on the premise of "i must give each character the same number of levels of spells"?*




PErhaps you have the tactic I posted confused with a "comparison of fighter to archer" -- I've posted a tactic for NPC enemies to use *against* the PC archer(s) ... at which point, some parity in spells used IS not only fair, but the correct way to examine the tactic.



> *Thats never how it works in my games. Guys get GMW, if available, based on benefit. if the mage has the spells, they give the archers two and the melee guy one, because thats how they benefit. Typically, they throw 1 GMW for ammo and its divided among the archers based on need. So its more like the archer got 1/3 of a third level spell if they bothered to count levels.*




And that'd be fine, if the Archer and the Melee Grunt were on the same side, fighting a common foe -- IOW, if both were in the same party.  My example tactic isn't even close to that.

As well, the people I game with tend to spread spells around in a way to make the maximum number of PLAYERS have *fun*.  If that means less than absolute-optimal damage-dealing efficiency ... so be it.


----------



## Grog (Dec 9, 2002)

Zad said:
			
		

> *1. The archer does more damage*




Agreed, at least unless the meele character can come up with enough Strength to offset the stacking bow+arrow damage the archer gets. But the archer will still do more damage in most cases simply because the meele character has to close in the first round.



> *2. This is offset somewhat by power attack. You cannot make any meaningful comparison between the two without including power attack in the comparison.*




Power attack isn't that useful because it automatically applies to _all_ your attacks. So while you get more damage out of your first attack or two, there's a good chance it'll make you miss your final attack, and you're probably going to end up losing more damage from that than you gain from the power attack.



> *3. In exchange for a little less damage the swordsman
> 
> Threatens hexes
> Gets attacks of opportunity (hence does more damage)
> ...




Let's look at that list:

Threatens hexes - Sure, it's nice, but how useful is it really? Casting on the defensive is pretty easy for spellcasters to do. He can set up flanking for the party rogue to get sneak attacks, but that's really a benefit to the rogue, not the meele fighter.

Gets attacks of opportunity - Again, it's nice, but in most cases it's not going to compare to the fact that the archer can usually make full attack actions from the beginning of the combat. Plus the meele fighter has to _take_ attacks of opportunity sometimes, while the archer usually doesn't.

Can sunder/trip/etc - True, meele fighters have more options they can use than archers, who are pretty much stuck with straight damage. But in order to use those options, meele fighters (obviously) have to be close to the monsters, which puts them within range of lots of monster special abilities. And monsters usually have _much_ nastier special abilities than meele fighters (improved grab + swallow, energy drain, etc.) Archers usually don't have to deal with those because they're out of range. Advantage: archer.

Can cleave - Cleave will sometimes give you an extra attack, but archers get an extra attack every round with rapid shot. Again, advantage: archer.

Can subdue - Seriously, how often is this going to come into play? If you're thinking about subduing an enemy, the odds are pretty good that the fight isn't much of a danger anyway.

Doesn't really look that balanced to me. The archer has most of the advantages _and_ does more damage to boot. My fix for this was to change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows, which goes a long way towards fixing the problem of bow and arrow bonuses stacking. Sure, the PCs can still use magic arrows, but those are a limited resource the DM can control.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 9, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And that'd be fine, if the Archer and the Melee Grunt were on the same side, fighting a common foe -- IOW, if both were in the same party.  My example tactic isn't even close to that.
> *



I am sorry, it appearsperhaps that I am confused. I have not been comparing archer and melee guy comparisons based on "as if they were fighting each other." I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.

I would surmise that the result of a "archer vs meleer" one-on-one would probably biol down to ranged or not ranged more than most anything else.

If i misunderstood your post about spells distributions, then thats my bad. 

As a Gm, i am more conerned with balance between PC characters and their abilities as part of a team than the ubiquitous "who wins this duel" kind of stuff, tho i do understand why others are more interested in such.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As well, the people I game with tend to spread spells around in a way to make the maximum number of PLAYERS have fun.  If that means less than absolute-optimal damage-dealing efficiency ... so be it.
> *




Well i can certainly understand the "do it for fun" angle but then that also would not necessarily tend towards the sort of "spread evenly" levels thing you mentioned. it seems that while we both have our guys using different criteria, neither of us is using "spread spell levels evenly" as a basis for that decision, which is what my point was.

thanks.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 9, 2002)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> Power attack isn't that useful because it automatically applies to all your attacks. So while you get more damage out of your first attack or two, there's a good chance it'll make you miss your final attack, and you're probably going to end up losing more damage from that than you gain from the power attack.
> *




Actually, power attack is a little less efficient than even that.

First off, in ranges where a hit is not automatic (exception 1) power attack is only going to increase your expected damage if the chance to hit is greater than the average damage. (H-D > P)

While power attacks do have their place in the sun, wailing on objects and helpless foes and walls, I have certainly not seen it as as significant a factor in routine combat as the "extra shot at higheest BAB" or the "double stacking from GMW" has been seen to carry.


----------



## Zad (Dec 9, 2002)

> Threatens hexes - Sure, it's nice, but how useful is it really? Casting on the defensive is pretty easy for spellcasters to do. He can set up flanking for the party rogue to get sneak attacks, but that's really a benefit to the rogue, not the meele fighter.




It's still an asset. Nobody said it had to be an asset to the individual character. If the party as a whole does more damage because the rogue can sneak attack, then I call that a benefit.




> Gets attacks of opportunity - Again, it's nice, but in most cases it's not going to compare to the fact that the archer can usually make full attack actions from the beginning of the combat. Plus the meele fighter has to take attacks of opportunity sometimes, while the archer usually doesn't.




It still adds to the damage total for the melee fighter. Furthermore, yes the archer can take full attacks from the start of combat, but will probably want to be within 30 feet which means moving. If they're not, their damage drops 3 points per arrow and they loose accuracy as well.



> Can cleave - Cleave will sometimes give you an extra attack, but archers get an extra attack every round with rapid shot. Again, advantage: archer.




The entire analysis is figured out with rapid shot included. Archers generally do less damage per shot but get the extra shot. The cleave does add to the damage output of the melee fighter. Countering by saying 'well rapid shot' is redundant - RS was included already. You're trying to count it twice.



> Can subdue - Seriously, how often is this going to come into play? If you're thinking about subduing an enemy, the odds are pretty good that the fight isn't much of a danger anyway.




Did I say it was a monumental advantage? No. But it is a benefit.



> Doesn't really look that balanced to me. The archer has most of the advantages and does more damage to boot. My fix for this was to change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows, which goes a long way towards fixing the problem of bow and arrow bonuses stacking. Sure, the PCs can still use magic arrows, but those are a limited resource the DM can control.




Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think as a fix you've basically said "You cannot be an archer in my game" which I don't think makes much sense. Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels.  Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.

Its your world of course, so you can do as you like. I don't think bonus stacking is a problem - it's offset to some extent by power attack. The numbers convinced me of this. The damage gap is just not as big as people make it out to be and those people screaming I don't think ever really worked out how much damage a melee fighter can do.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 9, 2002)

Assuming the abovementioned combats with foes that are inferior to the PCs, I've seen Power Attack more than once being the norm.

All those examples with large and huge enemies that have less cover behind the melee friends of the archer and now they are soo bad to hit? Large enemies usually would use the abovementioned "trip the archer and whack him" tactic. Probably above the head of the melee boy. Yes you can use your dex bonus to avoid trips. But another thing ... the high dex of the archers usually doesn't help much to raise AC since they end up using lighter (or no) armour. Reflex saves are nice, perhaps combined with evasion, sure. But IME the focusing on strength only still gives the melee fighter a big edge. Add rage to the calculation (which stacks with all those nice strength items or empowered bull's strength) and the melee boy will rival many big monsters damagewise. He will get hit, sure. But if enemies are not able to hit archers too, they will keep their heads down in cover.

The only problem why many melee boys in my groups don't hit that much is because they can't stop using Expertise at maximum. Just a habitude, not that it would help that much.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 9, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> * Yes you can use your dex bonus to avoid trips. But another thing ... the high dex of the archers usually doesn't help much to raise AC since they end up using lighter (or no) armour. . *




I just wanted to focus in on this and say   

What kind of anti-power gamers or just really bad ones do you play with.  Chain shirt + 18 dex =+8 to AC:   full plate +12 dex= +9(big difference) 22dex and mithral shirt =+10 aC mithral full palte and 16 dex =+11ac oh yeah I see the difference here.


----------



## Grog (Dec 9, 2002)

Zad said:
			
		

> *It's still an asset. Nobody said it had to be an asset to the individual character. If the party as a whole does more damage because the rogue can sneak attack, then I call that a benefit.*




Okay, that's a fair point. But it's only applicable if there's a rogue in the party and you're fighting something that can be sneak attacked.



> *It still adds to the damage total for the melee fighter. Furthermore, yes the archer can take full attacks from the start of combat, but will probably want to be within 30 feet which means moving. If they're not, their damage drops 3 points per arrow and they loose accuracy as well.*




Well, if the encounter starts more than 30 feet away, there's a good chance the meele fighter may not even be able to attack in the first round, while the archer can get at least one shot off.



> *Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think as a fix you've basically said "You cannot be an archer in my game" which I don't think makes much sense. Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels.  Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.*




And the PCs don't have to use them on a regular basis. It's the PCs choice. Do they husband their magic arrows carefully, and do less damage as a result? Or do they use them liberally, and risk running out at a critical time? Or do they try to strike a balance?

Also, as DM I control how many magic arrows the party finds. So the balance issue is easily correctable for me. If the archer starts to suck compared to the rest of the group, I increase the number of magic arrows I give as treasure. If the archer is overshadowing the rest of the group, I reduce the number of magic arrows they find. It's easy to handle.


----------



## Pax (Dec 10, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *I am sorry, it appearsperhaps that I am confused. I have not been comparing archer and melee guy comparisons based on "as if they were fighting each other." I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.
> 
> I would surmise that the result of a "archer vs meleer" one-on-one would probably biol down to ranged or not ranged more than most anything else.
> 
> ...




Just to clarify further: my example was a tactic for the *DM* to use, in the person of NPCs, against archers, on occasion (obviously not every melee NPC enemy will have extra partial actions ... but the few who, on occasion, DO ... will give the archers *fits* and make them that much more grateful to the melee PC's who normally shield them from being closed to melee range.

It's not meant as an example of a duel between PC's, not in the slightest.




> *Well i can certainly understand the "do it for fun" angle but then that also would not necessarily tend towards the sort of "spread evenly" levels thing you mentioned. it seems that while we both have our guys using different criteria, neither of us is using "spread spell levels evenly" as a basis for that decision, which is what my point was.
> 
> thanks. *




Apply spell levels exactly evenly, no.

But whoever needs more help to be brought "up to par", tends to get it.  Spells don't invariably and *exclusively* go where they will have the most benefit in-game, they go where they will best ensure everyone at the table has a good time that night.  If that means the archer runs out of GMW'd +5 arrows partway through the big fight, because the melee fighter was Hasted ... *shrug* ... at least both players had a "Fair share" of the fun and entertainment that night.

Oh, and another tactic to deal with archers, that also relies on terrain: *pin them against the terrain*.  Make it so a single 5-foot step *cannot* take the archer out of a threatened square (back them up against a wall, for example).  Most melee characters won't care too much (a wall behind you means you're not going to get flanked form THAT direction at least!), but archers ofc wouldn't like sucking full attacks AND provoking AoO's, both ... !


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 10, 2002)

Okay, here's a long post, (and I think I've commented on everyone's responses.)




			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Could you define 'twinky', please?   *




'Twinky' is a word I picked up some time ago when a guy randomly called me one. He was using it in the same way most people might use 'munchkin'.

To me, it is a verb, adjective and noun:

* Verb: * 'to twink'--- to make a character more efficient, generally dealing with combat.

* Adjective: * 'twinky', 'twinkish'--- used to describe to properties of a character that has been 'twinked'.

* Noun: * 'twink'--- a person who regularly 'twinks'.
.
.
.
In my part of the universe, 'twink' is roughly synonymous to 'munchkin'. The former generally has a bit more prestige, however, because the latter is generally more concerned about Efficiency to the detriment of everything else (inlcluding other players).

A Twink is a "Munchkin Jr.", if you will...

I find that most RPGers have some measure of twink in them. (This description is not an off/on switch, but a sliding scale.) Most RPGers would balk at playing, for example, a bard with a dagger, or a mage with a 3 Int. 
.
.
.
So, the way I was using it was to describe that our characters, though not munchkin-wet-dreams, are not anti-munchkin characters. 


*



			Victim---

Not always. *snip description*

Beyond raw CR, other factors have to be considered. Some tactical situations aren't going to be threat to certain groups, and others overwhelming.
		
Click to expand...


*
I never said always. Why would you think that I am attempting to say that CR is an absolute? I understand that CR is a guideline. However, in order for us to have any common ground whatsoever, I use CR. This is because I am not going to bring up every possible combination for every single type of encounter with every combination of character classes in a party against every single type of monster in order to satisfy you. 

I need you to trust that I comprehend CR and DMing enough that I am conscientious of the fact that situation and party composition are important factors in determining the challenge of an encounter. 


*



			IceBear---
Pressing the Attack feat
		
Click to expand...


* 
I've never seen it, though it looks like a neat feat. (I fear however, that there are probably many _ archer _ feats in Dragonstar that compensate for this.)


*



			ascendance---
The other uses TWF, which is only useful for sneak attackers. Real melee characters use 2-handed weapons. Its the way the rules work.
		
Click to expand...


*
Whoa. Have you ever seen a full blown TWF character? With two weapons (or a double weapon) of speed, improved and greater TWF, specialization, and twin GMWs?

I used to think that dual wielding sucked compared to a two handed weapon. I am now a convert. This is because most analysis' between the two neglect to take into account that increases to damage are more important than increases to hit. A high level fighter with a double-bladed sword of speed (or twin rapiers if you want to crit out) gets 9 attacks per round, with each one gaining bonuses from enhancement bonuses and specialization. 

*



			Exotic Weapon Prof: Spiked Chain.
		
Click to expand...


*
So you are trying to tell me that in order to compete with someone who uses a * martial * weapon, I need to learn an * exotic * weapon? Doesn't that imply that the * martial * weapon in question is too powerful compared to other * martial * weapons?

*



			....L6 Tribal Defender 1:
		
Click to expand...


*
We haven't gotten to PrCs yet. This has all been using base classes. Besides, if I go TD, he'd go PA, OotBI and AA (which are all better than the TD, especially if combined).

*



			Pax---
Duom
		
Click to expand...


*
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can't stand this weapon. It ranks up there with the mercurial cheesword. 

*



			Olgar Shiverstone---
I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.
		
Click to expand...


*
Actually, the problem is with core rules, namely GMW and RS. Which Petrosian already covered. (We've been playing with core rules in this specific campaign.) 

*



			LordAO---
I have a couple of suggestions that might help.
		
Click to expand...


*
Sorry to nitpick, but, in the past 6 pages of posts, we have already gone over lots of topics. Maybe, just maybe, your suggestions have already been covered.

*



			Petrosian----
The imbalance i perceieve, in play and in analysis, stems from the double enhancement stacking and is exacerbated by low penalty for the rapid shot feats use to gain an extra attackextra attack. That is all core rules material.
		
Click to expand...


*
I concur.

*



			I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.
		
Click to expand...


*
I concur.

*



			Zad---
Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels. Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.
		
Click to expand...


*
Easy way to fix this...make magical arrows less expensive, maybe? 

*



			Darklone---
The only problem why many melee boys in my groups don't hit that much is because they can't stop using Expertise at maximum.
		
Click to expand...


*
Weird. Our melee guys never use Expertise. (Most never have the requisite Int, anyway.)

*



			Grog---
Also, as DM I control how many magic arrows the party finds. So the balance issue is easily correctable for me. If the archer starts to suck compared to the rest of the group, I increase the number of magic arrows I give as treasure. If the archer is overshadowing the rest of the group, I reduce the number of magic arrows they find. It's easy to handle.
		
Click to expand...


*
Although I agree with everything else in your posts, I personally don't like this DMing style. I much prefer the treasure to not vary based on the party composition. Treasure, IMHO, should be plausible and probable, not a DM tool to limit character effectiveness. That is, afterall, the whole point of gp value for treasure. (To each his own, however.)

I am more inclined to believe that the designers of the game were smoking crack when they priced magical arrows (sorry, Monte *grin*). A melee fighter swings their weapon way more than 50 times before the weapon breaks, and yet an archer would lose those hard-earned gps after 50 shots.

I still stick by my 1/500 pricing. It's limiting, but not castrating. Of course, YMMV and all that...


----------



## Lela (Dec 10, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can't stand this weapon. It ranks up there with the mercurial cheesword.*




I like the Merc. Greatsword.  After errata of course.  Now it only has the crit increased to x4.

Then agian, I can always "twink" around with it and at things like Icy Burst (my personal favorite).

Then agian, I had a fighter in my group a while back who always seemed to hit (and often crit) with his greatsword.  The DM hated that sword.  It broke everytime he rolled a 1.  It was a great joke; even the player himself laughed.

Then, our Bard found the _Mending_ spell.  Joke was back on the DM then. 

I can still see him hitting his head on the desk.  Over and over.

Now, the reason I brought this up was so I could point out what happened when he started taking levels in Weapon Master.  But it seems we aren't allowed to mention PrCs (Tribal Defender anyone?) that aren't Core.   

Seeing as they just happened to have the AA in there; the arguement becomes biased.  Again, not that he needed a PrC to smack down monsters (munchkin like).  He just happened to get one.

That same player also happens to be the Archer in my current campaign.  Everyone is overpowered in that one though and it is only slightly noticed by myself.  And if I knew more about tactics (like I do after this thread) I would be better able to handle ranged guys.

I'll let you know how next session goes.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 10, 2002)

Grog said:
			
		

> *Okay, that's a fair point. But it's only applicable if there's a rogue in the party and you're fighting something that can be sneak attacked. *




Flanking benefits any melee attacker, not just rogues.  They reap the greatest benefit, if the target is subject to criticals, but a cleric with a mace and lower BAB can benefit from the -2 AC...especially if he's attacking to aid, increasing the melee fighter's benefit.



			
				Lela said:
			
		

> *Now, the reason I brought this up was so I could point out what happened when he started taking levels in Weapon Master. But it seems we aren't allowed to mention PrCs (Tribal Defender anyone?) that aren't Core.  *




Not allowed?  By whom?  If you mean that many of us will immediately dismiss your argument, then yes.  Claiming that archery is broken because of a non-core feat, prestige class or spell is like claiming that a rogue's sneak attack is too powerful because Traps & Treachery has an Improved Sneak Attack.  The base rules mechanics are fine...it's the new feat, class or spell that is throwing your balance off.  Once you get away from the core rules, you loose the validity to comment on their efficacy.  



> _Originally posted by ConcreteBuddha_
> *Verb: 'to twink'--- to make a character more efficient, generally dealing with combat.*




Thank you.  We were using different definitions, then.


What I'm curious about is how far many of the posters to this thread have taken archers, game-wise.  Often, I see a great deal of armchair qb-ing, but precious little actual game application, particularly in the double-digit levels.  I now have a party of 17-18th level players, 6 of them, and have seen over time how archers have behaved.  A review, over time, shows me that if archers are overpowered, it's because of the feats and prestige classes that get allowed them, not the core rules themselves.  Moreover, I've seen what a properly buffed and equipped high-level melee fighter can do, and don't see the imbalance.

My players just survived an EL22 encounter this weekend, against the Cathezar from 'Bastion of Broken Souls'.  It wasn't the archer who carried the day, it was the melee.  The divine casters couldn't punch past her SR, the arcane caster had better luck, but was so endangered in the area as to have his effectiveness reduced (to remain in the area was suicide) and the archer was constrained by line-of-sight and other factors...he never got a single shot.  The Paladin, armed with his holy sword, was the one who drove her off, doing and taking mass amounts of damage, keeping her on the defensive and shielding the other more vulnerable combatants.  He single-handedly preveneted a TPK (the druid nearly caused one, but that's another story...this one, in fact. 

The point is that, as often as not, when I hear the monday morning DMs claim something is broken, it's often just guess work, not actually field-tested data.  Archery is a strong option...it should be.  As others have pointed out, ranged weapons have eventually replaced melee as the weapon of choice in battlefields and personal combat over time.  That said, in a game, they should be balanced so that no particular choice of character class is the optimal one in all situations.  Not that they aren't the optimal in SOME situations.

The Cathezar battle illustrated to me balance, not the lack thereof.  Only working as a coordinated team were the players able to survive, let alone drive her off.  If not for the judicious use of heal spells, daylight, mass haste, empowered lightning bolts, sneak attacks and combined melee and ranged attacks, a TPK was possible (and at one point, seemed probable).

Furthermore, campaign differences can radically affect some character types more than others.  A melee character's effectiveness falls out of balance to a spellcaster when there are only one or two encounters a day, for example.  When the casters have no fear of using spells they might need later, they can dominate faster.  In a situation where there are limited supplies, an archer hoards his arrows.  In situations where the players face lots of enemies, the rogue and fighter have more prominence.  So too with the cleric and undead.  Checks and balances.  Every character type should have a place where they are most effective: the archer SHOULD be better at dealing damage in an open field against distant opponents.  In a constrained environment, considerably less so.

And finally, one reason I requested the comparison from Zad was to illustrate power at particular levels.  I often see this sort of argument ping-pong back and forth with counter to counter, often comparing vastly different power levels.  For example, discussing TWF's power and including an epic feat like Greater TWF throws the discussion out of whack.  Comparing a 5th level melee fighter unequipped against a 15th level archer fully-equipped may make your argument more compelling, but certainly not more believable, when analyzed.

Ultimately, I don't much care about archer's strengths, except relative to other characters types in-game.  All players should be able to overshadow others at specific times...but be overshadowed themselves elsewhere.  That's what makes the game fun, IMHO.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 10, 2002)

My experience is quite simple.

I have been Dming a game for about two years (anniversary in January.) In that time, the characters have advanced from 2nd to 12th level. Recently, to replace player losses, we added a rogue, who came in at 10th level.

The dwarven fighter and the barbarian produce prodigious melee combat ability and show their stuff encounter after encounter. The "dedicated archer" is actually a druid/ranger (I use different druid weapons restrictions but that does not affect the issue as his druidic levels impeed his archery... he would be better as a fighter.) 

The dedicated archer has a +1 (mighty +4 str) corrosive bow (like flaming but it adds acid damage 1d6 instead of fire) while the fighter typically swings a +2 keen dwarven war axe (with some spell-once-per-day things) and the barbarian swings a +2 dragon bane greatsword (also with some spell add-ons.)

The arhcer tends to lag a level or two behind the fighter/bar in terms of extra attacks from BAB. however rapid shot makes up for this and adds extra at some levels. i would say about half the levels he has an extra shot due to rapid shot. This was fairly pronounced when he was at early levels, like 3-5. 

before the party began using GMW (their sor got it at 9th) the archer was doing about par with the rapid shot and more frequent full attack actions making up for weaker weapons and less strength bonus. His dex is not maxed out, and when he got into melee his damage with a quarter staff was fairly impressive.

After they began using GMW, then things switched. Now, instead of being a + down in terms of enhancements, he was a net +6 to their net +3. This moved to +8 vs their +4 and will soon reach +10 vs +5. IIRC he stopped taking archery feats after 6th (PBS, PS, RS and Far Shot??) cuz he started to fill into the role of party healer and began working feats toward his druid stuff. He is NOT a munchkin archer with maxed dex and uber feats. The early feat for RAPID SHOT and more frequent full attacks kept him in the race neck and neck. The value of extra attacks is huge in that regard. When GMW kicks in, making the doublke stacking a daily thing and not some rare thing that costs a lot, his arhcery strength went thru the roof. Amusingly, while this was happening he was devoting character time to improving his druid stuff with the natural spell feat and the plant potion thing out of MotW. He has had the same bow for at least 6 levels or so and has not spent archery feats/skills in that time. Nor has he spent charc points on dex, they went to wisdom.

The elf rogue coming in at 10th finds great success as an archer and is now flabbergasted that his to hit chances surpass the melee fighter. He often gets improved invis and does sneaks attacks at range. his dex is very high and his damage boost comes from sneak... but since he has been getting GMW on arrows and bows, he finds that whereas before he thought a non-sneak shot was worthless (doing d6+1) he now sees d6+9 with the bonus to hit as worth it. he now hits better than the fighter, and moving invisibly he can often avoid full cover bonuses.

In a game i played in, i was running an elven fighter. I started him with decent dex 16 and high Strength 18. I had intended to run him as an atypical elf, using two handed weapons. About 4th level i began to map out his future development. Since the party sprcerer planned on GMW around 9th, i began to look at what that would do. i quickly came to see that the extra attack and double enhancement made working for foc/spec/crit and PBS/RS/PS on bow extremely appealing. The numbers when run showed i could get F/S/C on bow, PBS/RS/PS, and also get F/S/C on my axe by around 12th. At that point, assuming +4 weapons, the bow/arrow was a better choice for to hit and damage and numbers of attacks. Unfortunately, that campaign ended prematurely so i never got to play him at the developed level.

When using NPCs, the couple of times i have used "archer" specialists, who were typically no slouches, they did very well.

So. all in all, this is not, for me, a theoretical issue. It first raised its self when i had it in play.

other's mileage may vary.


			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What I'm curious about is how far many of the posters to this thread have taken archers, game-wise.  Often, I see a great deal of armchair qb-ing, but precious little actual game application, particularly in the double-digit levels.  I now have a party of 17-18th level players, 6 of them, and have seen over time how archers have behaved.  A review, over time, shows me that if archers are overpowered, it's because of the feats and prestige classes that get allowed them, not the core rules themselves.  Moreover, I've seen what a properly buffed and equipped high-level melee fighter can do, and don't see the imbalance.
> *


----------



## Victim (Dec 10, 2002)

When our group had an archer, I found that he did better damage against hard targets, but less against soft targets when compared to our group's main fighter (a fighter/rogue build).  A GMW was a greater priority for the archer, but the fighter often had haste from Boots of Speed.

However, when playing, I found that the archer didn't help much besides damage.  Out of 6 characters, we had 2 pure arcane casters so some fragile characters needed protection.  The archer usually stayed in back and fired arrows, so he didn't provide any screening or flanking benefits.  Also, the dungeon we were exploring at the time was rather cramped, and at times it was difficult getting all the ranged attackers into position.  There were a few times in which he either didn't have a shot, or would have had to fire through several characters in order to hit because of the tight confines.

Overall, I'd say that the archer did somewhat more damage than the existing main fighter, but didn't have the same non-damage utility like tanking, and a few levels of rogue for skills.

I don't see where everyone is getting all these GMWs.  My cleric was the only character with it, I didn't have the spells to buff everyone, and have much left.  At one point while the archer was around, the following characters could have used combat buffs: the archer (2 GMWs), the fighter rogue (1), the ranger/foehunter-undead (2 GMWs), and my cleric (1).  There might have been a barbarian at that point too, I'm not not sure.  There's no way I could have kept GMW on everyone, and I prefered to take Spell Immunity, Deathward, an occasional Divination and some other good stuff.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 10, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *The dwarven fighter and the barbarian produce prodigious melee combat ability and show their stuff encounter after encounter. The "dedicated archer" is actually a druid/ranger (I use different druid weapons restrictions but that does not affect the issue as his druidic levels impeed his archery... he would be better as a fighter.) *





How do you figure that?  You've removed some of the penalties of the class, and I'm guessing that you've also removed the armor restrictions.  In exchange, he gets a beefy WILL save, only loses up to 2 hps/level, and gets spellcasting ability earlier.  There is more to the equation than BAB.  Your dislike for the stacking effects of GMW should point that out to you, alone.




> *The elf rogue coming in at 10th finds great success as an archer and is now flabbergasted that his to hit chances surpass the melee fighter. He often gets improved invis and does sneaks attacks at range. his dex is very high and his damage boost comes from sneak... but since he has been getting GMW on arrows and bows, he finds that whereas before he thought a non-sneak shot was worthless (doing d6+1) he now sees d6+9 with the bonus to hit as worth it. he now hits better than the fighter, and moving invisibly he can often avoid full cover bonuses.*





Sounds like the fighter isn't getting improved invis, making this less of an apples to apples comparison.  Against a construct or the undead, your rogue isn't going to do that much in comparison to the fighter.  It sounds like you're setting up a lot of encounters that play to the archer's strengths, honestly.  You also don't mention the fighter getting a GMW.  Is he, or is he hitting well enough it was deemed he 'didn't need it'?  With that increased threat range, his damage would be better if he had it, which would also change things.

The rogue is doing what he's supposed to, getting his sneak attacks.  His reduced BAB should be penalizing him here, or they're coming up against very dextrous foes, and suffering badly when their dex bonus is denied.  In both cases, your problem seems more to be with GMW than with archers.  It sounds like the archers throw down their bows when the beasties get close, so they're not incurring the danger of AoOs and/or low mobility while in combat.  I'm not seeing a problem there, honestly.



> *Unfortunately, that campaign ended prematurely so i never got to play him at the developed level.
> 
> When using NPCs, the couple of times i have used "archer" specialists, who were typically no slouches, they did very well.
> 
> ...




Well, that's two different issues.  NPCs and monsters follow different rules, for very important reasons.  Hence the reason for ECLs being sometimes radically different than a creatures CR.  I have used archers against my players...and they've been ripped apart just as much as melee beasties.  

I've also noticed that pure archers tend to be stymied with non-lethality situations.  In one combat we experienced, the enemy had used small children as power-sources for constructs, and destroying the constructs would result in killing their hosts.  Subdual damage and other tactics were needed.  Dominated or confused fellow party members is another problem that requires more than just killing the target.  Someone who opined that subdual damage isn't a useful ability of melee obviously plays a fairly limited game, IMHO.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 10, 2002)

Petrosian,

I am not convinced that what you describe is really an archer issue.  Any decently designed specialist who gets buffed and properly protected by meatshields is going to do very well the majority of the time.

I also don't think it is a problem if the archer dishes out ~20%-30% more damage on average than the front line grunt.  The grunt has tactical value that cannot be replaced by a little extra damage.

As a matter of fact, I play a paladin with an archer in the same party.  That archer inflicts about _twice_ the damage I do in a typical brawl.  I don't find that a problem; I count on it.  I could compete in damage if I wanted, but I see greater value to the party by spending my PC's resources (feats & magic) in other ways.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok, how about a step back here.  If most of the posters have agreed that archers deal more damage than the melee types, and they are fine with that, why?

Melee types will be subject to more damage than the ranged types, in general practice, because they are in front.  Melee types will dish out less damage, by general consensus.  They have the advantages that Zad mentioned, threating, subduing, ect.  Are those worth taking more damage and dealing less?

In war, you want to kill your enemy before he kills you, end of story.  Advantage: archer.  If you are an investigator, you need to capture.  Advantage: melee.  I could keep listing "adventurer" occupations, but I think you get my point.  

I have played and run games most often in the past 7 years as war.  If they try to kill you, you kill them first.  In the case of the golems powered by children, I would give them a quick death and gone to punish those who did this crime.  Maybe we can raise the kids later, but death happens.  This is the simplest solution most often.  Whatever you think of D&D, you should see that this is a perfectly viable way to play.

In short (too late), archers are annoying for DM and other players where the "other advantages" of the melee don't come up often.  Since my experience has lead to me to believe that most D&D combat is war, I will continue to be annoyed at archers.  I may, however, choose to run/play in a different type of game in the future.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 10, 2002)

I have been running a 3e campaign for 2 years and play "THE" melee fighter in games at various levels (10th & 27th).  All three games have had a dedicated archer.  (BTW: I'm not saying there aren't other melee fighters in the other games, just that I'm the meat shield that throws himself into the dragon's maw to try and make it choke).  

As such my characters should be the ones irritated by the archer.  As the GM of a game with a high-dex rogue/arcane archer/Deepwood Sniper with all the toys, I should be irritated.

I am not.  

As a GM I can deal with the archer by hordes of easily killed targets.  The fighter cleaves his way through them without regard while the archer's primary weapon draws mutliple attacks of opportunity.  They are still effective in melee combat, but not nearly as such.  

Or I use archers back.  Imagine the look of shock on an archer's face when a half-dozen goblins begin riddling them with arrows.  "Why me?" they cry.  "Because you have your bow out and can return fire" I answer.  When they go up in levels it's orc rogues using strength bows, getting the sneak attack on the first flight of arrows.  

As the meat-shield I know there are times where I'm just a distraction, keeping the big-bad from eating the others by getting it to eat me.  That's because I can't kill it before it can kill them, but the mages & archers can surely put it down if given the chance.

At epic levels we fought a lava wight once.  I didn't have weapons able to punch through the DR with any consistency but the archer had the "ignore DR" feat.  I went into mega-defense mode (Expertise, defensive fighting, shield, defender sword, etc).  The wight needed a 20 to hit me and I need to max damage to hurt it.  But the archer slowly ground it to powder while I kept it at bay.  

Had I not been there the archer would have been a crispy.  Had there been no archer I would have been a crispy.  

Teamwork.  I use it as GM so the bad guys can put up a decent fight.  I use it as a player to make up for individual deficiencies.


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 10, 2002)

Well said,  kigmatzomat.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 10, 2002)

I agree 

IceBear


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 10, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Well said,  kigmatzomat. *




Thanks, and call me James.   

There's always another "James" on a board but I've never encountered anyone else willing to use the Basquan phrase "there's nothing as good as meat" as a handle.  

-James


----------



## IceBear (Dec 10, 2002)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thanks, and call me James.
> 
> ...






I hope kreynolds doesn't spot this one, or it could be turned to "the dark side"

IceBear


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 10, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> I hope kreynolds doesn't spot this one, or it could be turned to "the dark side"
> 
> IceBear *




My friends would find great humor in the concept.

Yer gonna have to 'splain that one.  I've lurked about the EN boards for a while but haven't noticed personalities yet.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 10, 2002)

Victim said:
			
		

> *I don't see where everyone is getting all these GMWs. My cleric was the only character with it, I didn't have the spells to buff everyone *




Our groups source is a 12th level sorcerer with the spell and the extend feat. before bedtime he casts a bunch of the day long or hour long spells extended to last 24 hours. At 12th level with no bonus spells, a sor will have 6 4th, 5 5th and 3 sixth level slots for XGMW use. in our game, he uses 5 of these 14 slots, sometimes 6, to enchant two melee weapons (one for each fighter), two bows (one for the rogue and the archer ) and one for a set of 50 arrows. Sometimes they do 100 arrows.

Unless they fought earlier and he used spells, this leaves 8-9 spells of 4th and abaove available for use during the night if they get jumped. The spells refresh in the morning and last all day.

The occasional dispel drops some of these off, but the most common target for dispels is the mage, with fighter types second.

At 15th level, the sor gets "chain" and can with a single XC-GMW as a seventh level spell privide 16 weapons/ammo-sets of +5 lasting 30 hours with the one spell. That becomes two weapons per character in the six man party and 200 arrows. Even if dispelled, its one spell to renew it all.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I have played and run games most often in the past 7 years as war.  If they try to kill you, you kill them first.  In the case of the golems powered by children, I would give them a quick death and gone to punish those who did this crime.  Maybe we can raise the kids later, but death happens.  This is the simplest solution most often.  Whatever you think of D&D, you should see that this is a perfectly viable way to play.*




Well, we've established you're not a Paladin, that's for darn sure.  Lucky for those children you weren't there, I suppose.  Instead, they found other ways to deal with the problem, and eventually managed to save all of the children, and their enslaved parents, as well.  I'm guessing you have a thing with round pegs and square holes, because it's clear that all you've got is a hammer (and thus everything is a nail).  Most D&D parties are a little more subtle than that.  In this case, that strategy would be sentencing over seventy children, at least, to death, as the cleric wouldn't have enough time to raise them all.  Never mind the reaction of the Paladin's god, cleric's god (who sent them) or their LG patron.

Also, we didn't agree that archers do more damage, we agreed that archers do more damage over time, in toto, under the right conditions.  Archers don't do more damage per attack, they do more damage per round, if conditions are right.  Example: in my game, at around 15th level, the archer was rendered useless when fighting animated ballistas, as were the spellcasters, for the most part.  Only the melee players could deliver the damage to actually destroy or even incapicate them.

Archers can dominate, if all the combats are designed to play to their strengths.  This does not make them broken.  More than likely, they are either using house rules, prestige classes or feats that help break them, or they are just not getting faced with the right kinds of challenges.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 10, 2002)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My friends would find great humor in the concept.
> 
> Yer gonna have to 'splain that one.  I've lurked about the EN boards for a while but haven't noticed personalities yet. *




Just with his sense of humor I can see "nothing as good as _meat_" taking on a different connotation 

IceBear


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 10, 2002)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> *I have been running a 3e campaign for 2 years and play "THE" melee fighter in games at various levels (10th & 27th).  All three games have had a dedicated archer.  (BTW: I'm not saying there aren't other melee fighters in the other games, just that I'm the meat shield that throws himself into the dragon's maw to try and make it choke).
> 
> As such my characters should be the ones irritated by the archer.  As the GM of a game with a high-dex rogue/arcane archer/Deepwood Sniper with all the toys, I should be irritated.
> 
> ...




To each their own.  I agree that a party without a melee fighter in front is going to have a great deal of problems.  I also agree that a party of nothing but melee fighters will also have problems.  Teamwork is an important part of the game.

That being said, you most of all should see why some of us could be annoyed at archers.  Like the experience of another poster from the SCA, you felt good teaming up with others for maximum effect.  Do you get the gradatude of your comrads for being in harms way?  Do you worry about dying more offen than the archer because you throw yourself in the way of danger?  Maybe you have great skill in character design so you are safe, others do not.

I lament those melee characters who aren't so good at design.  I have seen newbe after newbe ground under playing melee characters, but those same players are fine as archers.  Shouldn't people be allowed to play reasonably effective characters of all types?  I am annoyed by a well designed archer out-damaging a well designed melee fighter.  I usually expect the great hero with the magic sword to slay the dragon in the fairy tales, not a fist full of magic arrows and a magic bow.

I won't ruin my day if others don't view the game this way.  But if this thread has shown me anything, it is that others feel the same and several specific rule modifications can be made to bring D&D more in line with these expectations.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I usually expect the great hero with the magic sword to slay the dragon in the fairy tales, not a fist full of magic arrows and a magic bow.*




I take it you were upset at how Smaug was slain in _The Hobbit_ then.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 10, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, we've established you're not a Paladin, that's for darn sure.  Lucky for those children you weren't there, I suppose.  Instead, they found other ways to deal with the problem, and eventually managed to save all of the children, and their enslaved parents, as well.  I'm guessing you have a thing with round pegs and square holes, because it's clear that all you've got is a hammer (and thus everything is a nail).  Most D&D parties are a little more subtle than that.  In this case, that strategy would be sentencing over seventy children, at least, to death, as the cleric wouldn't have enough time to raise them all.  Never mind the reaction of the Paladin's god, cleric's god (who sent them) or their LG patron.
> 
> ...




I generally don't play paladins, but I have.  If the rest of the party couldn't accept the children's deaths, I would help the party with their solution, depending on charcter.  Some of my characters would have run, some kill, some rescue the children at all costs.  The point is that this situation has come up rarely in my experience, so I don't try to plan for it.

In my game, by the way, I plan to use a lot of the tricks I have read here (maybe even the captured children) because I like situations that play to every character's strength.  I am annoyed I don't see this more often.  I am currently playing in "City of the Spider Queen" and the archer makes the rest of the party look like chumps.  When I played Ruins of Adventure, the elven machine gun was dishing out huge damage compared to the rest of the party.

I never said archers dominate.  I said I am annoyed by them.  I am annoyed as a DM always being forced to plan around this group.  I can change my game, but I can't force other DMs to do so to theirs.  Maybe, just maybe, a future DM of mine will read this thread and decide that a lot of situations favor the archer, and this can be annoying.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 10, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I take it you were upset at how Smaug was slain in The Hobbit then. *




I didn't read the book.  I don't recal a similar situation from The Lord of the Rings though.


----------



## HeavyG (Dec 10, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I take it you were upset at how Smaug was slain in The Hobbit then. *




That was a BADD moment if there ever was one.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...Teamwork is an important part of the game.
> 
> ...




In the game I run, the fighter is known as Suvantar "of Ipecac" with a battle cry of "Eat me!"  He is not kidding.  He has been in more creature's gullets than any other game I've seen or heard of. (and no, I'm not playing to him)  The rest of the party appreciates him incredibly.  Once he got separated from the others and they had a fight sans meat shield.  They were nearly worm food from a measly carrion crawler that was able to engage all of them in melee attacks.  

In the other games (I tend to play with different people than I run for; no reason, it just happens) if the others didn't follow MY lead they tended to get eaten.  I was point and the second-tier fighters (strong druid, weak ranger, rogue) positioned themselves to best effect around me, with the ranged characters using us as cover.  It only took a few times for the bard to drift too far from the protective wall of muscle and get mauled before they learned where the safe zone was.  And who saved them when they were getting mobbed?  That's right, me, the fighter.    

I really don't think the problem you are having is with ranged characters or you'd have the same opinion of spellcasters using area effect or ranged spells.  (darn, do I as a GM hate spike growth some days)

No, I think your character isn't being appreciated.  You'll have to decide if that's because you judge your value based on damage directly dealt or if the others in the party (possibly the archer in particular) are ungrateful bastards.  

Personally I knew that after 5th level, the melee character will no longer be able to do more damage in a single round than the rest of the party.  Rogues start getting enough sneak attack dice and fireballs start showing up that you just can't measure your worth based on max damage.  

Oh, and just wait 'til that archer finally fumbles a saving throw and all his magic arrows get incinerated.  Swords have high hardness and lots of HPs, arrows are like wands, hardness 5, 5hp.  Anything doing 20hp damage will destroy every arrow, even after a successful save.  

OT
Heh.  I got to watch a sorceror/rogue and fighter/wizard fumble saves last session; almost three dozen wands went blooie.  Serious personal entertainment, since the rogue hadn't been hurt by a single one of the cryohydra's breath attacks all night.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 10, 2002)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't think the problem you are having is with ranged characters or you'd have the same opinion of spellcasters using area effect or ranged spells.  (darn, do I as a GM hate spike growth some days)
> ....
> ...




Don't get me wrong, I hate spell casters where I am just annoyed at archers, but I didn't want to bring that into the whole mix.  The primary difference is that I can use SR to slow them a great deal, melee threats on arcane casters are very dangerous to them, and spells run out, except, perhaps, the sorcerer.

I was interested in your destruction of equipment though.  Besides not knowing the item destruction rules very well when it comes to AoE spells, I always felt it cruel to take away treasure that way.  I always hated it when it was done to me, I prefer not to do it to my players.  Besides, it makes the loss more memorable when it does happen.  Do you normally use this to keep arrow supplies low?  Counting arrows gets tedious most times, at least for me, but if I can destroy them 50 at a bunch...


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 11, 2002)

Smaug was killed by Bard. I'm not kidding.
(I worded it oddly, for those not familiar with the book. Someone will post a more sensible comment soon.)


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I hate spell casters where I am just annoyed at archers, but I didn't want to bring that into the whole mix.  *




Yes I suck for the Hi-Jack.  

But spell-casters espcially arcane style ones ahve always been a favorite of mine in RPGs and novels.  I play them in games where they suck and I play them in games where they rock.  In many campaigns in D&D though where there are sufficient encoutners per day, I almost don't want to play one because the amount of lime light I can steal if I paly my wiz/sor even half intelligently is obscene.  Damage dealing doesn't bother me much with the D4 hp crap bab, one good save, and limited resources.  But ugh I can handle virtually any situation with spells, the I can solve any problem and I only need others as meat shields thing gets on my nerves.  Which is why I like the evercrack RPG the spellcasters can dish it out in their specialty but they aren't so much the do anything yabos they are in d&d.(though the divine casters in evercrack annoy me in that they have offensive spells on par with all the arcane dorks except the wizard and they have just as much utility and they still get good hp, saves, bab etc.)

But in my 3e camapign to help v the spellcasters all non spellcasters got a boost of 2 skill points a level and a widended there class skill list.  Bards got 2 more skill points since I thought they were a bit weak, and paladins/ranges got +1 skill pont a level and a slightly broadended skill list since they are only partial casters.) This doesn't help in the archer v grunt debate, which is why its a hi-jack and why that yes I do suck.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 11, 2002)

I gave every class in my current campaign 2 more skill points, but didn't remove the skill point cap or add class skills.  It seems to work out well, since characters have points to spread arround.  It hasn't been more than an odity so far, so i will continue.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 11, 2002)

LokiDR: That isn't a 'by the book' 3rd. ed. mechanic for handling destruction of equipement, but it is certainly a reasonable one and much more in line with the 1st ed. mechanic than the default one.  I kinda like it.

By default in 3rd. ed. though, only one object goes *kaplooie* when you fumble a saving throw vs. a damaging attack and there is a definate order of precendence which would in general protect said arrows.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 11, 2002)

Ah, noted.  I knew there was reason I usually didn't mess with item destruction, by the rules.  Good to know, none the less.


----------



## Lela (Dec 11, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not allowed?  By whom?  If you mean that many of us will immediately dismiss your argument, then yes.  Claiming that archery is broken because of a non-core feat, prestige class or spell is like claiming that a rogue's sneak attack is too powerful because Traps & Treachery has an Improved Sneak Attack.  The base rules mechanics are fine...it's the new feat, class or spell that is throwing your balance off.  Once you get away from the core rules, you loose the validity to comment on their efficacy.
> 
> *




First off, Grog didn't say that.  I did.  Careful with the references there.

Second, I'm actully for archers the way they are.  The Weapon Master example was a reference to what happens when you have a class that focuses in _one_ melee weapon.  The Core AA does this with the bow (using magic of course) but there aren't any classes that do the same for melee weapons (Core only).  With me so far?

Now, I was implying (because you didn't seem to catch on there) that because of the AA, the argument is stacked in favor of the archers when it comes to PrCs (which did come up).

At last we come to my overall point.  In breif, t is claimed that archers are too powerful.  We look at archers feats and what is going on in the game in question.  The response comes that the melee guys aren't as "tweaked" as the archer and an example is given of one way to "tweak" them.  It, of course, is immeditally dismissed because someone doesn't like the none-core materials.

This thread seems to repeat of that cycle (from both sides, I might add) since page 2.

Seeing as a new page of this forms every two days, each page repeats what was said two pages before, they cycle above, and my time is becomming more limited as finalls aproach, I'm going to step out of this thing.

Congratulations, you have beaten me out by repeating the same thing over and over until I got tired of listening.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 11, 2002)

Lela said:
			
		

> *First off, Grog didn't say that.  I did.  Careful with the references there.*





Sorry, cutting-and-paste mistake.  I'll correct that now.  Mea Culpa.



> *Second, I'm actully for archers the way they are.  The Weapon Master example was a reference to what happens when you have a class that focuses in one melee weapon.  The Core AA does this with the bow (using magic of course) but there aren't any classes that do the same for melee weapons (Core only).  With me so far?
> 
> Now, I was implying (because you didn't seem to catch on there) that because of the AA, the argument is stacked in favor of the archers when it comes to PrCs (which did come up).*





I think I'm following what you're saying here, I just think you're wrong.  The assumption that the AA is inherintely superior and that an archer who classes into AA is the ultimate archer under the core rules is debatable (especially due to the sacrifices required to become one).  I agree there is no corresponding Master Swordsman PrC under core, but I don't see that as a weakness per se.  The AA's primary ability is to spontaneously produce self-powered magic arrows without another spell-caster's aid.  Useful, yes, but not that much more useful than having a wizard GMW your arrows.



> *At last we come to my overall point.  In breif, t is claimed that archers are too powerful.  We look at archers feats and what is going on in the game in question.  The response comes that the melee guys aren't as "tweaked" as the archer and an example is given of one way to "tweak" them.  It, of course, is immeditally dismissed because someone doesn't like the none-core materials.
> 
> This thread seems to repeat of that cycle (from both sides, I might add) since page 2.*





Not by me, it wasn't.  I haven't said thing one about the melee characters, except to request an actual by-the-numbers comparison using pure archer versus pure melee and only core rules information (i.e. no S&F, MotW, and so forth).  The reason to exclude the splatbook material is to clean the slate, and illustrate that it's not fair to call archery broken if you're only going to claim it's broken due to subsequent and vastly undertested material.  Saying that archery is broken because of a FTR5/BRB1/OOBI8/DWS3 in your game, all the while ignoring the possibility that the error lies with the splatbook material and not the core is, IMHO, just plain silly.

You seem to have been somewhat selective in which posts you read, which is your perogative, but not all of us have been riding that merry-go-round.



> *Congratulations, you have beaten me out by repeating the same thing over and over until I got tired of listening. *




Yay, me!


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 11, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I generally don't play paladins, but I have.  If the rest of the party couldn't accept the children's deaths, I would help the party with their solution, depending on charcter.  Some of my characters would have run, some kill, some rescue the children at all costs.  The point is that this situation has come up rarely in my experience, so I don't try to plan for it.*





In this case, that would have turned out to be a lose/lose situation.  Possibility of a TPK AND wanton murder of innocents.  You can read the actual details right here. 





> *I never said archers dominate.  I said I am annoyed by them.  I am annoyed as a DM always being forced to plan around this group.  I can change my game, but I can't force other DMs to do so to theirs.  Maybe, just maybe, a future DM of mine will read this thread and decide that a lot of situations favor the archer, and this can be annoying. *




Fair enough.  I certainly don't disagree that there are plenty of situations that do, or that archers aren't strong.  Archers annoy me too, sometimes.


----------



## Zad (Dec 11, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Archers annoy me too, sometimes.  [/B]





That's why I bring donuts. 

Quick note on the Arcance Archer. IMHO, it's the most inoffensive of prestige classes. I'd almost go as far as to say "underpowered". You give up some things to get there, and in return you get to make your own magic arrows. 

Compare this to the party wizard casting GMW for you, and it's not much of a benefit. Usually your arrows will lag behind the bonus the mage could make. And as you level higher, the use of that third level spell becomes less of an issue.

OOBI or Deepwood sniper? Rant away. But Arcane Archer is actually pretty mild.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 11, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *LokiDR: That isn't a 'by the book' 3rd. ed. mechanic for handling destruction of equipement.......
> 
> By default in 3rd. ed. though, only one object goes *kaplooie* when you fumble a saving throw vs. a damaging attack and there is a definate order of precendence which would in general protect said arrows. *




Really?  Can you give me a page number?  When it happened the player who rolled the first fumble (also a 3e GM) started doing his own item destruction process.   While I'm hideously amused at the image of two dozen wands of 0-2nd level spells sparkle and fizz, I also didn't really plan on destroying almost 8,000gp of magic items between the two of them.  On the other hand, I really didn't have a problem with toasting the bandolier (no joke) of wands.  High surface area, quite accessible on purpose, and not particularly sturdy. (Let's see if they're smart enough to begin special-ordering wands made of metal, like the DMG says can be done.)  

I'll admit that it did seem harsh and I mitigated it to the situation by declaring that certain items with low hardness/HP (cloaks, clothing, jewelry) were essentially immune to the relatively low amount of cold damage (11HP pre-save, just enough to toast a wand on a failed save)

Arrows are even more vulnerable; wooden shafts with feathered vanes exposed during combat that need relatively minor amounts of damage to rend non-functional.  Given the situation, even non-critical damage to an arrow can reduce it's accuracy or make it useless until repaired (ever fired an arrow with broken or missing vanes?  Not pretty.)  

Of course, *I* have to deal with players with a quiver of ehlonna.  Most I'm likely to do is cause them to lose a round while they move arrows from another storage area to the primary quiver.  

And as far as arrow management I keep track of the number of rounds of combat we had.  As a rule of thumb the archer uses 2/3 full attack every round worth of arrows, implying he either fires less arrows due to movement or didn't fire at all some rounds (drink a potion, activate an item, etc).  Right now he gets 3 arrows a round, so we toss off 2 arrows each round of combat.  It works well enough for both our purposes though the quiver pretty much mooted that.  Every time they're in town they pick up another 100ish arrows.  I only keep track of things like that when I know they aren't going to be near a town with for any length of time.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 11, 2002)

kigmatzomat: Sure, page 150 PH at the top of the page second column.  Arrows and/or wands fall under 'stowed or sheathed weapon' I'd assume.  Also there is a detailed discussion at the wizards website in the series of stories demonstrating obscure rules, and I think there may be a question and answer in the FAQ.

As a side note, as a DM I'm all for destroying items (which is why I'm interested in someone using a more 1st edition mechanic), but I tend to give non-liquid objects a degree of cold immunity, say 1/4 damage.  So probably the only thing I might have forced to make a saving throw from 11 points of cold damage would be exposed potions/holy water or other objects containing liquid.  But then again, if all the wands are bone, wood, coral, or what not, perhaps sudden cold would make them splinter.  Did your players make a fuss?


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 11, 2002)

*Don't fight the archer fight his bow*

Anybody forced an archer into melee and then dealt with him the right way?  You know what I'm saying: attack the bow.  By the SRD a spear has hardness 5 & 2HP.  Figure a well made composite bow is a bit stronger with 5HP and any good power attack shot will shatter it like kindling.

Then there's the more ranged options; alchemist's fire.  No save and only requires a touch attack.  Given the number of times it seems to roll up as a mundane-exceptional treasure I see it being used quite a lot, especially in concert with flasks of regular oil.  Even if it misses the splash can work well on a pack of closely packed people, especially if used as a held action vs. casting.  "Darn, I missed hitting the mage directly but I splashed him for a point of damage forcing a concentration check and nicked the archer."

BTW: I found another mistake in the save-fumble item destruction that happened in my game.  Seems that items only take 1/4 damage from cold and 1/2 damage from other energies (barring a particular weakness like fire & paper).  This is done pre-hardness, cutting down further on the destruction.  
This still doesn't change my opnion that a fireball will ruin exposed arrows on a fumble just as a matter of course.  
(Q: Exactly how fireproof are feathers?  
A: Very much not.)


----------



## Spatzimaus (Dec 11, 2002)

It's not like there hasn't been enough argument on this one, but I'd like to point out something people have glossed over in the melee vs. ranged comparisons.

Attacks of Opportunity.

Archer doesn't threaten, so he doesn't get AoOs.  His attacks are limited to the Full Attack action he'll take, and if hasted his Partial action as well.

Swordsman gets his attacks, but he also gets AoOs.  Even without Combat Reflexes, there'll usually be SOME point in the round where he gets to take an AoO on the bad guy, at his full BAB.  In general, the damage lost by being forced to move+attack instead of Full Attack should be made up for by even one AoO.

I had a Psychic Warrior with a Glaive, Psionic Charge, Stand Still, Combat Reflexes, and a 50' base movement.  She'd charge up to the bad guys, hit one of them, and then do 3 or 4 AoOs as they tried either to get to her or go past her.  Sure, it was less consistent than the Archer's damage, but it had a far greater effect on the battle's outcome thanks to Stand Still.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 11, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *kigmatzomat: Sure, page 150 PH at the top of the page second column.  Arrows and/or wands fall under 'stowed or sheathed weapon' I'd assume.  Also there is a detailed discussion at the wizards website in the series of stories demonstrating obscure rules, and I think there may be a question and answer in the FAQ.
> *




Which will hopefully be covered in 3e Revised.  Oh, and I'm not sure if these wands would count as being truly "stowed & sheathed" since they were on a bandolier across the chest in both cases.  Whether the bandoliers count as "sheathed" will depend on what they are made of I guess.  




			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> As a side note, as a DM I'm all for destroying items (which is why I'm interested in someone using a more 1st edition mechanic), but I tend to give non-liquid objects a degree of cold immunity, say 1/4 damage.
> *




Go back and check the breaking/damaging items section like I quouted in my previous post.  Items *do* take partial damage from energy most of the time.  But I'm partial to lots of "irritation" damage for flavor; losing 10 feet of that silk rope coiled around your waist as a belt, burning off a mundane cloak, trashing a nearby tent, that kind of stuff.  I lump arrows into that category since burning the feathers off makes them useless for now but the fletcher skill can restore them in an evening.  



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> *But then again, if all the wands are bone, wood, coral, or what not, perhaps sudden cold would make them splinter.  Did your players make a fuss? *




Fortunately not.  I have *good* players.  They rolled the fumble, they looked up the rules on item destruction.  And, apparently, they misread it and I didn't catch it.  I really didn't do anything much other than find the save & item hardness/hp for them.  Fortunately that was the end of the game session so I can undo that without much problem I think.  

Oh, and not all wands have to be wood/bone/etc.  There can be metal wands but they are rare.  I figure I'll have a 20% markup for steel wands, worth it for the double hardness and increased HPs.  I can even see someone willing to pay out for the mithral or adamantite wands.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> *
> Anybody forced an archer into melee and then dealt with him the right way?  You know what I'm saying: attack the bow.  By the SRD a spear has hardness 5 & 2HP.  Figure a well made composite bow is a bit stronger with 5HP and any good power attack shot will shatter it like kindling.
> *



Here we go again.

OK first off, the bow weakness to sunder is a myth. Unless all your 2e longsword toters still carry those weapons, you will notice that , hey you did, a spear, an axe and many other melee weapons are just as sunderable. So, unless you ONLY sunder archers, or unless all your meleers wield maces and longswords like good 2e characters, the sunder issue is rather moot.

However, since th archer weapon, like the meleer's is GMWed only weapons at least that enhanced can even try it. unless all your minions are toting similar +4 or so enhancements, they cannot do any damage.

Now for the real error. before fire damage is resolved, it is halved against objects and then gets the hardness. So, any round in which your alchemists fre does 12 damage, it will hurt the bow.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*



			
				Petrosian said:
			
		

> *OK first off, the bow weakness to sunder is a myth. Unless all your 2e longsword toters still carry those weapons, you will notice that , hey you did, a spear, an axe and many other melee weapons are just as sunderable.
> *




I didn't say "weakness" I said "forgotten tactic."  Fact is, attacking a weapon is rarely a good idea since it evokes attacks of opportunity.  Unless you have a *really* good chance of destroying the weapon it will just cause you grief.  *BUT* the target can't make AoO with a ranged weapon while in melee combat without evoking an AoO on themself.  You then have the opportunity to make TWO "strike weapon" attacks or inflict normal damage in addition to the weapon break attack. 

And no, most of my players don't use long swords.  They like scimitars and staves.  Wait, they can sunder with those too.  



> *
> However, since th archer weapon, like the meleer's is GMWed only weapons at least that enhanced can even try it. unless all your minions are toting similar +4 or so enhancements, they cannot do any damage.
> *




Unless you can point to a FAQ, errata or Sage citation, I wouldn't apply that rule to a projectile weapon.  I don't apply it to magic cloaks and other items that are enchanted but not intended to be slammed into opponents.  Why should bows get the bonus?  




> *
> Now for the real error. before fire damage is resolved, it is halved against objects and then gets the hardness. So, any round in which your alchemists fre does 12 damage, it will hurt the bow. *




Ahh, but I wasn't discussing catching the BOW on fire.  I was talking about setting the ARROWS on fire.  Feathers would have the same, if not greater, vulnerability to fire that paper has because they are so exposed.  
No feathers = no fletching = no aerodynamic flight = no useful arrows.  

And as a side note, real world bowstrings are notoriously vulnerable to fire & cold attacks.  High surface area/mass ratio combined with being under high tension means a high likelihood of breakage.  I'd also rule that water-based attacks lessen the strength bonus (if any) of bows when the string stretches and/or loses elasticity.  

Permanent damage to the bow? No
One to two rounds of lost attacks while the archer restrings? Yes


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*

OK first off, the bow weakness to sunder is a myth. Unless all your 2e longsword toters still carry those weapons, you will notice that , hey you did, a spear, an axe and many other melee weapons are just as sunderable. So, unless you ONLY sunder archers, or unless all your meleers wield maces and longswords like good 2e characters, the sunder issue is rather moot.[/B][/QUOTE]

Not true.  

A sunder attempt against a wielded melee weapon requires an opposed attack roll -- a 50-50 proposition in a fair fight, plus an AoO.

A bow is an object in hand and not a wielded weapon.  The AC of the bow will be 10 + 5 {for in hand} + Dex -1 {for large object} = ~20 AC; middle level challenges will hit that 60%-90% of the time.  And no AoO.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2002)

A quick preusal of the faq turned up nothing for me with my limited skills.  But a archer wearing a spiked gauntlet(or gauntlet for that matter) does he threaten the area around him while using the bow?

I'd say no, but I'm not sure.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 11, 2002)

Oh man, not *THAT* question again (before it was with unarmed attacks though).

This long and ugly thread is about to get even longer and more ugly.  I would personally say, no he doesn't as he's using the bow (to do otherwise, in my opinion, takes away one of the disadvantages of using a bow).  Some would say yes he does.  Others would say, that if he decided to use two weapon fighting penalties - at the beginning of the rounf - then he could.

IceBear


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 11, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *It's not like there hasn't been enough argument on this one, but I'd like to point out something people have glossed over in the melee vs. ranged comparisons.
> 
> Attacks of Opportunity.
> 
> ...




Tumble, DC 15 stops this pretty quick.  Since archers place a premium on dex, they should have a good chance if they get the tumble skill at all.  Neither I nor any one I know use psionics, so I haven't seen Stand Still in action.  Is there a non-psionic version?  This tatic could be fun with Pressing Attack.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 11, 2002)

I should have been more specific...

The myth i was referring to is the one about how fragile bows are with only hardness 5 and blah blah... many melee weapons are similarly 5 hardness and low HP, such as spears and staves.

Bows are indeed probably easier to hit, depending on the relative strengths in combat of the participants. They are just not obviously more fragile than most melee weapons...

As for the other guy who wonders why i would apply the rules for enhancements to bows...

Well, bows are weapons...

"The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness and hit points. If a combatant's shield has a +2 enhancement bonus, a combatant add 2 to its hardness and to its hit points."

If it said MELEE weapon, i would agree with excluding bows from this.

it doesn't.

Is there an FAQ or erratta that i have missed which specifies this only applies to MELEE WEAPONS? If so then i am in error.

If not, then are you suggesting that by implementing this house rule that weakens bows you have found them to be balanced in play in your games? 

Given i think archery is a tad overpowered, i would not be averse to the notion that applying a house rule that made bows more vulnerable than the core rules specify resulted in a balanced play.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 11, 2002)

I know that other GMs have done well with item destruction, but I still say it should be used sparingly.  To weaken bows to destruction by the means mentioned would just mean that archers would have to carry arround more of them.  For me, this falls into the arrow counting, used as a counter point to common operating procedure.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 11, 2002)

> *As for the other guy who wonders why i would apply the rules for enhancements to bows...
> 
> Well, bows are weapons...
> 
> Is there an FAQ or erratta that i have missed which specifies this only applies to MELEE WEAPONS? If so then i am in error.*




The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.

The quote about enhancement bonuses making weapons invulnerable to lesser enhancements, adding to hit points, etc, falls under the subheading of "Strike a Weapon" in the PHB (the section that applies to melee weapons only), while no corresponding quote appears in the "Strike an Object" section (the one that applies to ranged weapons).

-Hyp.


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 11, 2002)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.
> 
> ...




Interesting. i do not think that clear a division of rules exists in the SRD. i found the section on magic weapons in the same place as hardness and so on.

I will have to look tonight to verify your PHB references. i had thought the rule in question was in the DMG myself.


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 11, 2002)

First, the FAQ mentions this "ruling" as basically an aside in answering another question, not very authoritative, that.

Second, the SRD does not group the rules the same way, so that rules for magic weapons and shields is not under "attack a weapon."

Third, even if the sage really feels that bows should be treated as an object under "attacking an object," that does not change the fact that the rules, as written, would include bows as "weapons." 

It's an enormous stretch to think that this mention of bows as object, buried inside paragraphs dealing with a different issue, should mean that the rule for attacking magic weapons does not apply to them.

(See also the thread on sundering shields, where I just posted the same thing)


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 11, 2002)

Even if you don't got deny bows their invulnerability to damage from less enhanced weapons, they still have a few disadvantages vis a vis melee weapons:

1. They have less hit points than most hafted melee weapons. Sure, a battle axe has hardness 5 and 5 hp or so. That's still three more than a bow. Average damage from an orc with a greataxe (9.5) won't sunder the axe. It will sunder the bow.

2. Since ranged weapons don't threaten an area, opponents don't need the sunder feat in order to sunder them without penalty. If the orc warrior tries to sunder the battle axe, he'll probably end up dead from the AoO. The archer doesn't get an AoO.

3. Since the FAQ indicates that the strike an object rather than strike a weapon rules should be used for sundering a bow, it's a good deal easier for mooks to hit a bow than a battle axe. To hit the battle axe, they need to beat the melee fighter (who's probably several levels higher than them) in an opposed attack roll. In order to hit the bow, they just need to hit a set number (that's usually lower than 10+melee char's attack bonus).

And that's without bringing in house rules for metal hafted or reinforced hafts on battle axes or house rules that make it the axe head and not the axe handle that's enchanted (allowing a new handle to be attached repairing the axe at a cost of a few gp rather than a few thousand).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.
> 
> The quote about enhancement bonuses making weapons invulnerable to lesser enhancements, adding to hit points, etc, falls under the subheading of "Strike a Weapon" in the PHB (the section that applies to melee weapons only), while no corresponding quote appears in the "Strike an Object" section (the one that applies to ranged weapons).
> 
> -Hyp. *


----------



## Petrosian (Dec 11, 2002)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> Even if you don't got deny bows their invulnerability to damage from less enhanced weapons, they still have a few disadvantages vis a vis melee weapons:
> *



I give no argument that there are advantages... merely to the percieved fragility in comparison.


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 1. They have less hit points than most hafted melee weapons. Sure, a battle axe has hardness 5 and 5 hp or so. That's still three more than a bow. Average damage from an orc with a greataxe (9.5) won't sunder the axe. It will sunder the bow.
> *



At lower levels, the factors that propel archery beyond melee are not present. The fact that a levelless orc has a better chance is relaively insignificant in my games once arhcery is at its peak.


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 2. Since ranged weapons don't threaten an area, opponents don't need the sunder feat in order to sunder them without penalty. If the orc warrior tries to sunder the battle axe, he'll probably end up dead from the AoO. The archer doesn't get an AoO.
> *



By the levels when archery is IMO in need of balancing, the sunder feat is easily accessible for those who tend to include it in their tactics. it fits right nicely alongside the opposite feats spent on archery in the examples.


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 3. Since the FAQ indicates that the strike an object rather than strike a weapon rules should be used for sundering a bow, it's a good deal easier for mooks to hit a bow than a battle axe. To hit the battle axe, they need to beat the melee fighter (who's probably several levels higher than them) in an opposed attack roll. In order to hit the bow, they just need to hit a set number (that's usually lower than 10+melee char's attack bonus).
> *




No argument, the bow is easier to hit. hitting it and damaging it, are two different things.





			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> And that's without bringing in house rules for metal hafted or reinforced hafts on battle axes or house rules that make it the axe head and not the axe handle that's enchanted (allowing a new handle to be attached repairing the axe at a cost of a few gp rather than a few thousand).
> 
> *




I have no problem with any Gm who has decided to add house rules to further empower melee weapons as opposed to bows. It seems many Gms have decided to use such rules and that once they are in use some semblance of balance occurs.

I have no issue with these examples of alternatives at all.

Well, acrually, i would tend to guess that if the balance option chose for archers is "break your magic weapons" that this might not be the most enjoyable solution for those who want to play archers and who really would prefer a balanced set of archery mechanics in favor of having their hard earned loot broken again and again and again.

Me, i st6ill prefer using the "solve the problem" by direct means, addressing the double double rules instead of trying to find more ways to take things away.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 11, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> Third, even if the sage really feels that bows should be treated as an object under "attacking an object," that does not change the fact that the rules, as written, would include bows as "weapons."
> *




All right.  By the rules, Melee Matt fights Archer Adam.  Matt attacks Adam's bow.  Adam is unable to AoO Matt since he doesn't threaten.  Matt makes his attack roll.  As part of the "Strike Weapon" action, Adam makes his attack....roll?  Huh?  He parries with an arrow?  

Ignoring the "incidental" comments that do not explicitly address the issue, logic alone dictates that the bow is unable to take advantage of the "Strike Weapon" mechanics because 1) the bow user gets no AoO despite "strike weapon" granting one and 2) because the opposed attack rolls in the mechanic can not in any rational world make sense.

And personally if you were a DM who made that ruling, I would make a called shot on the bowstring.   Hardness 2, 1 HP, sure +4 AC.


----------



## Artoomis (Dec 11, 2002)

It seems like one of the most pervasive arguments about why archer are powerful revolves around GMW.  It also seems to me that if a party relies on GMW, that word will get around via the "bad guy network," and pretty soon when this adventuring group is out and about bad guys will be flinging Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel) around quite a bit.

In fact, in anything except a dungeon crawl, a famous group will tend to get known for its tactics, and, unless they can be flexible, they will soon find their cool tactics lead to their demise.

Also, of course, the great equalizer is the enemy archers who will target the archer.  This should happen routinely.  "Fireball" and the like are the best defense against this.

In real ancient and medieval warfare, archers were feared for good reason.  This is not well-represented in D&D for balance reasons.  Still, as can be seen by this thread, they still can cause some concern.

It's kind of like saying that mounted warriors are unbalanced in D&D.  In a way they are - I can easily set up a mounted dog scenario that is truly vicious with ride-by attack, etc.  It's pretty hard to counter, given that there is no AoO and you get to keep zipping by giving as much as x4 damage routinely, x6 on a critical!

So what?  Such characters are rather specialized and it does them no good when their particular specialty cannot be used.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*

nevermind.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately this is not the case.  Striking a weapon is a standard action, not an attack action, so it can't be used as an AoO.  Also, in order to strike a weapon, a meleer must give up any extra attacks he may have.
> 
> You can't sunder with a staff, only with slashing weapons. *




Reall? in that case two rules I never knew, I aught to read sunder more closely.

Of course neither of these things change that I hate the sunder mechanic, but hey its something new I overlooked.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 11, 2002)

I'm pretty sure you can sunder with a staff.  All it says in the rules is to use common sense on when determining if the weapon is effective or not.  I can see someone breaking a sword with a staff.

Edit: Yeah, the SRD says you must use a slashing or bludgeoning weapons to strike a weapon so staves are in.  Good catch about the Standard action vs Attack action though.

IceBear


----------



## Spatula (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't fight the archer fight his bow*



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *Reall? in that case two rules I never knew, I aught to read sunder more closely.*



I was mistaken about the not being an attack action, but according to the rules you do need a slashing weapon.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 11, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I'm pretty sure you can sunder with a staff.  All it says in the rules is to use common sense on when determining if the weapon is effective or not.  I can see someone breaking a sword with a staff.
> 
> Edit: Yeah, the SRD says you must use a slashing or bludgeoning weapons to strike a weapon so staves are in.  Good catch about the Standard action vs Attack action though.
> 
> IceBear *



Bah, I'm 0 for 2 today... my PHB says slashing but it got changed in the errata.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 11, 2002)

Nevermind


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 11, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> At lower levels, the factors that propel archery beyond melee are not present. The fact that a levelless orc has a better chance is relaively insignificant in my games once arhcery is at its peak.
> *




It's still relevant at higher levels though. A lot of PCs end up using bladed melee weapons which have hardness 10+enhancement and 5 hp or so. In order to sunder that in one blow, the NPC needs to deal 15 points of damage which is far less typical than the 7 needed to sunder a bow.

At higher levels, smart melee PCs buy mithral and adamantium weapons to make sundering impractical (hardness 20+, and lots of hit points, etc) You can't get a mithral or adamantium bow.

*



			By the levels when archery is IMO in need of balancing, the sunder feat is easily accessible for those who tend to include it in their tactics. it fits right nicely alongside the opposite feats spent on archery in the examples.
		
Click to expand...


*
The thing about the sunder tactic though is that the enemy doesn't need to have the feat. Even if the NPC doesn't normally include sunder in his tactics against melee characters, he may well include it in his tactics against an archer. I was running a mod at one point where an aspiring arcane archer thought he'd be clever and fire his bow at a troll from within melee range counting on his shield to protect him. The next round the troll, who was smarter than your average troll, used a claw attack to sunder the bow and then tore into the archer with his other attacks. He wouldn't have done that to a melee weapon but it was easy, convenient, and cut the archer's damage output down dramatically.

*



			I have no problem with any Gm who has decided to add house rules to further empower melee weapons as opposed to bows. It seems many Gms have decided to use such rules and that once they are in use some semblance of balance occurs.

<snip>

Me, i st6ill prefer using the "solve the problem" by direct means, addressing the double double rules instead of trying to find more ways to take things away.
		
Click to expand...


*
The comment about metal hafted axes and repairing axe hafts wasn't intended to be a house rule to shift the balance between melee and archery characters. It is a house rule that I'd allow but the purpose would be to make hafted weapons more viable vis a vis bladed weapons. If it modifies the archery balance as well, so be it.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Dec 11, 2002)

_Originally posted by LokiDR _
*Tumble, DC 15 stops this pretty quick.*

True.  Although, Tumble seems to be the second-most-house-ruled thing in the game (first being Harm, of course).  I mean, it's just ridiculous that someone in heavy armor and weapons in both hands can somersault for 35 feet (from one side of my threatened area to the other) nonstop without giving me an opening and without slowing their movement appreciably.  The DC should definitely scale with distance.

Stand Still has no size limit, so it'd even work, in theory, on the Dragon flying past you, assuming he failed a DC 15 Fort save.  Of course, then you're left with a frozen above your head... splat.

Spring Attack and Ride-By Attack, on the other hand, are effective counters to Stand Still.

*Neither I nor any one I know use psionics, so I haven't seen Stand Still in action.  Is there a non-psionic version? *

Large 'n In Charge (S&F?) does the same thing, except no need for a Fort save I think (but only works on targets smaller than you? Don't have the book here), and there was some other unofficial book that had something similar.
Stand Still is the most balanced of these, IMHO; the target gets a Fort save, even though the DC gets huge (10+ damage?), it requires a WIS of 13 and a small power point reserve.
Psychic Warriors are fun.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> The comment about metal hafted axes and repairing axe hafts wasn't intended to be a house rule to shift the balance between melee and archery characters. It is a house rule that I'd allow but the purpose would be to make hafted weapons more viable vis a vis bladed weapons. If it modifies the archery balance as well, so be it. *




I'm fully behind this idea.  I hate that Axe weilders and the like are at a disadvantage for basically a styalistic choice Axe v sword without any mechanical advantage. (yeah, yeah real world life aint fair and balanced weapons don't need to be etc. but I want someone to use an Axe or whatever if they want to and not feel motivated to take a sword because they don't break as often)


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 11, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by LokiDR
> Tumble, DC 15 stops this pretty quick.
> 
> True.  Although, Tumble seems to be the second-most-house-ruled thing in the game (first being Harm, of course).  I mean, it's just ridiculous that someone in heavy armor and weapons in both hands can somersault for 35 feet (from one side of my threatened area to the other) nonstop without giving me an opening and without slowing their movement appreciably.  The DC should definitely scale with distance.
> ...




I think you have to be in light or medium armor to tumble.  My prefered tumble house rule(out of all the ones I've seen debated) is BAB of foe bypassing +10 for past and BAB+20 for through.  The only house rule I've curently implemented though is if you fail when attempting to tumble through an occupied square you get stoped, and any failure by 5 or more (on any tumble attempt)means you fall down 1/2 way through your move.


----------



## bret (Dec 11, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by LokiDR
> Tumble, DC 15 stops this pretty quick.
> 
> True.  Although, Tumble seems to be the second-most-house-ruled thing in the game (first being Harm, of course).  I mean, it's just ridiculous that someone in heavy armor and weapons in both hands can somersault for 35 feet (from one side of my threatened area to the other) nonstop without giving me an opening and without slowing their movement appreciably.  The DC should definitely scale with distance.
> *




You are only allowed to tumble 20 ft in a round.

As I recall, Tumble does have alternate rules in Song & Silence. I forget what they were, but I would be surprised if they don't show up in the revised PHB or DMG coming out this summer.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Dec 12, 2002)

*



			Elder-Basilisk----
You can't get an adamantium bow.
		
Click to expand...


*
Why not?




(hong is rolling over in his grave right now...)


*



			Lela----
At last we come to my overall point. In breif, t is claimed that archers are too powerful. We look at archers feats and what is going on in the game in question. The response comes that the melee guys aren't as "tweaked" as the archer and an example is given of one way to "tweak" them. It, of course, is immeditally dismissed because someone doesn't like the none-core materials.
		
Click to expand...


*

Actually, I said no PrCs and non-core materials. So the point about the AA is moot. 

(Our archer is a F/R with only core feats and no PrCs.)
.
.
.
The reason why I didn't want PrC tweaks to make melee characters more 'uber' is because the archers could then easily add on their own PrCs to make them more powerful. That is why a discussion of PrCs is besides the point.
.
.
.
On a side note: my annoyance at archers is from levels 1 to 20, which is where I have most, if not all, of my experiences. I cannot comment on Epic level archery.


*



			Artoomis---

It's kind of like saying that mounted warriors are unbalanced in D&D.
		
Click to expand...


*
You are comparing apples and oranges and attempting to set up a straw man. 

Mounted combat and archery are entirely different because mounted combat is rarely effective, whereas archery is commonly effective. I would also say that archery, in general, is far more effective than mounted combat. 

(Note: this is without PrCs or non-core material. If we use anything else dealing with mounted combat, it means we have to bring in archer PrCs and feats as well. This means that the only characters who are charging are paladins on their chosen mounts. Or any other class with a DM allowed special cohort-mount.)

*



			Spatzimaus---
Attacks of Opportunity.
		
Click to expand...


*
Okay, now this is funny.

*



			Sure, it was less consistent than the Archer's damage, but it had a far greater effect on the battle's outcome thanks to Stand Still.
		
Click to expand...


*
So your solution is that every melee character should be a psychic warrior with Stand Still and Combat reflexes? Then archers wouldn't be so powerful?

*



			Petrosian---
Well, acrually, i would tend to guess that if the balance option chose for archers is "break your magic weapons" that this might not be the most enjoyable solution for those who want to play archers and who really would prefer a balanced set of archery mechanics in favor of having their hard earned loot broken again and again and again.
		
Click to expand...


*
I concur.
.
.
.
And to all of the people who don't allow the enhancement bonus of a bow to protect against sundering damage, then that could possibly be the reason why archers are not as powerful in your campaigns. (People won't play twinked out archers because they know that their bow is vulnerable and drop their bow and switch to another weapon whenever in melee combat.)

Which is why we are having trouble finding common ground.
.
.
.
As per why we allow GMW (and enhancement bonuses for that matter) to defend against sundering damage:

1) PHB/DMG: Bows are weapons.
2) PHB/DMG: Weapons with enhancement bonuses are protected against damage.
3) PHB: GMW gives an enhancement bonus.
4) The Sage ruling applies specifically to attacking the bow, not damaging the bow, because this says:

*



			DMG, pg. 184---
Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon with an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high as an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of the enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness or hit points.
		
Click to expand...


*
And he says:

*



			FAQ---
Normally you need to make an opposed
attack roll to strike a foe’s weapon or shield, but if the item
you’re striking is not a melee weapon or a shield, just use the
rules for striking a held, carried, or worn object (pages 135 and
136 in the Player’s Handbook).
		
Click to expand...


*
Notice how it specifically applies to attack rolls and not damage rolls.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 12, 2002)

Yeah, I've house ruled that GMW doesn't count for sundering (I just didn't like the idea of someone casting GWM on a few weapons and then sending in goons just to destroy REAL magic weapons or someone using GMW to protect their normal bow from a +3 sword), but by the rules you're right - it should protect the bow from sundering attacks.

IceBear


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you have to be in light or medium armor to tumble.  My prefered tumble house rule(out of all the ones I've seen debated) is BAB of foe bypassing +10 for past and BAB+20 for through.  The only house rule I've curently implemented though is if you fail when attempting to tumble through an occupied square you get stoped, and any failure by 5 or more (on any tumble attempt)means you fall down 1/2 way through your move. *




I am pretty sure you can try to tumble in any sort of armor, but you take armor check penalties.  House ruling it may be good however.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are only allowed to tumble 20 ft in a round.
> 
> As I recall, Tumble does have alternate rules in Song & Silence. I forget what they were, but I would be surprised if they don't show up in the revised PHB or DMG coming out this summer. *




I believe the varient rule provides for counter tumbling.  In other words, rogues have a problem tumbling past higher level rogues.  Not too relevant here.


----------



## Corwin the Confused (Dec 12, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *It seems like one of the most pervasive arguments about why archer are powerful revolves around GMW.  It also seems to me that if a party relies on GMW, that word will get around via the "bad guy network," and pretty soon when this adventuring group is out and about bad guys will be flinging Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel) around quite a bit.*



Do bad guys have a network? Probably not the chaotic ones. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *In fact, in anything except a dungeon crawl, a famous group will tend to get known for its tactics, and, unless they can be flexible, they will soon find their cool tactics lead to their demise.*



A min/maxed archer will still be powerful after being dispelled.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Also, of course, the great equalizer is the enemy archers who will target the archer.  This should happen routinely.  "Fireball" and the like are the best defense against this.*



A smart archer would take cover from the NPC archers. Plus how many arcane casters want to fireball one target? But perhaps I miss your point.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *In real ancient and medieval warfare, archers were feared for good reason.  This is not well-represented in D&D for balance reasons.  Still, as can be seen by this thread, they still can cause some concern.*




Partial rant partial speech begins:

Artoomis, I do not mean to single you out. I just wish to address this opinion that seems to prevail on this thread. Sorry, if I look like I am flaming you.


Archers have had a long history of success:

The following are excerpts from this page
Archery Link 
"The bow and arrow has been the personal weapon of choice throughout the ages, and evidence of its use goes back well beyond 5000 B.C. The bow stands uniquely by itself as an effective and highly efficient hunting weapon and has been used continuously throughout the ages by most cultures, both primitive and modern. Early military records concerning the use of the bow have been recorded from countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and the Far East and has figured prominently in the success of numerous military campaigns throughout history. Although in modern times, the role of the bow has been virtually replaced by the use of gunpowder, it still remains the favorite weapon of many sportsmen. In fact, the bow, in its most primitive form, has been used to hunt big game throughout the world, including the African elephant."

"References to the use of the bow as an important military weapon come from most of the early civilizations in Europe and Asia. ... the bow first gives rise to prominence as an effective military weapon in the 11th century during the Norman invasion of England in 1066." 

 There are instances where single archers can kill heros. For instance, when King Harold died as a result of being hit in the eye by an arrow.

But archers typically needed large numbers to have a devastating impact on a battle. And they would need to have either long range or greatly protected flanks or higher ground or terrain that is hard to cross. At one of the most successful battles for archers, The Battle of Agincourt, they had all four. They were at long range. Their flanks were protected by trees as well as Henry V's troops. And they were up a rain soaked farmers field.

You can confirm this info at this site. Battle of Agincourt 

Historically archery had the biggest impact on the way wars were fought. (Not  as much as guns had though.) As I said above there is a quote that says, The honor went out of war when you no longer had to see the expression on a man's face as you killed him. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *It's kind of like saying that mounted warriors are unbalanced in D&D.  In a way they are - I can easily set up a mounted dog scenario that is truly vicious with ride-by attack, etc.  It's pretty hard to counter, given that there is no AoO and you get to keep zipping by giving as much as x4 damage routinely, x6 on a critical! .
> 
> So what?  Such characters are rather specialized and it does them no good when their particular specialty cannot be used. *




I agree specialists lay waste to their foes when they are in their favored environment. Isn’t that as it should be?

Full Round RANT begins (Yes, I am hasted!):

D&D is a fantasy role-playing game.

For me I do not see archers as heroic or believing in chivalry. I like the old Cavalier that disdained the use of range weapons. But that is just me. 

In D&D there are no modifiers about archery in rain. Historically speaking, Medieval archers would refuse to use their bows in the rain as it would ruin their bowstrings.

Also above there has been alot of talk about sundering of bows. In real life, how hard is it to sunder a bowstring. Or how resistant to fire or acid is a bowstring.

The bottom line is that I too am ANNOYED BY ARCHERS!  And I understand why if they were taken prisoner they had their fingers cut off. (Arquebusiers were killed.)

Archers can deal out massive damage. And an Archer with a prestige class or classes is very powerful. But can they deal out more damage than a Theif/Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger who can use two weapons while raging and sneak attacking? 

Are Archers broken? IMO, no. But it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that all the players are involved in the game. So if ConcreteBuddha has his ENJOYMENT of the GAME ruined by the Archers, then I blame an unimaginative DM.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 12, 2002)

I've been blaming either an unimaginative DM, or unimaginative melee fighters for ConcreteBuddha's complaints ever since this discussion started, but with the severely limited information he's giving, it's pretty much impossible to work out who's actually in the wrong - given that he just keeps chanting the mantra "but they kill everything in 2 rounds" without any elaboration, I'm guessing that it's him as he appears not  to be thinking about combat in a tactical way at all.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 12, 2002)

Just for the record, while I don't deny that the archers at Agincourt had all the advantages you describe, the site you link to is not what I would call a rigorous critical historical source.   So, while I don't disagree with your assertions, neither do I necessarily endorse everything that might be concluded by reading the site in question.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Dec 12, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> So your solution is that every melee character should be a psychic warrior with Stand Still and Combat reflexes? Then archers wouldn't be so powerful?*




Sigh.  No, that's not what I said.  I was making two points:

1> If you get the melee person doing 70 points and the archer does 80, you should also take into account the extra damage the melee person can be doing on AoOs before concluding that the archer is overpowered.  Depending on the situation, this can swing the balance back the other way.

2> Taken to the extreme, you can make a melee character that is DEFINED by its AoOs.  The character I described was that sort of person; she'd do more damage each turn by strategically placing herself where AoOs were inevitable than she would through attacking directly.  Stand Still was just the icing on the cake.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *I've been blaming either an unimaginative DM, or unimaginative melee fighters for ConcreteBuddha's complaints ever since this discussion started, but with the severely limited information he's giving, it's pretty much impossible to work out who's actually in the wrong - given that he just keeps chanting the mantra "but they kill everything in 2 rounds" without any elaboration, I'm guessing that it's him as he appears not  to be thinking about combat in a tactical way at all. *




There are a lot changes that various people make to D&D to bring the game into what they consider the most fun.  Look at harm and haste.  There are also a number of people who believe that these aspects are just fine.  Some poster has a sig of "Save the H spells".  Neither side is correct for all groups, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to this message board.

In the case of the ConcreteBudda, I have a feeling that archers are more optimized than the melee characters.  I also have a feeling that the DM uses tatics that favor the archers.  And the concept remains that a lot of the rules favor archers.

ConcreteBudda, myself, and other get annoyed by this.  To make the game more fun for us, we talk about the issues we face on these boards.

1.) Optimize the melee characters.
Sure it may well work.  Some of us don't like putting the rules ahead of the character we envision.  Is that such a bad thing?  At very least, there might be a few more character ideas floating around.

2) Demand the DM change tatics.
Also might work.  Again, this causes a person to change the way they envision the combat.  Should every DM read up on all the tatics to stop the archers?  What if I just want to play a simple game?  Again a good thing to know, again a solution that may or may not be best.

3) Change the rules that favor archers.
The hard core solution many may not like.  How many rules will you change?  Didn't the designers do a good enough job for you?  How is a new player ever supposed to get through all your house rules?  But if it lets you play the game you want to play, then maybe you could just remember it is a game, pull out the red pen, and edit away.

Chose your solution.  Many specifics have been posted.  I think the specifics of ConcreteBudda's situation are irrelivent.  This is a rant thread, and it is good to know how others deal with archers.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 12, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *2) Demand the DM change tatics.
> Also might work.  Again, this causes a person to change the way they envision the combat.  Should every DM read up on all the tatics to stop the archers?  What if I just want to play a simple game?  Again a good thing to know, again a solution that may or may not be best.*




LokiDR, not to rant again... but all I did say in my last ranting posts was that my experiences didn't confirm your posted experiences with archers and I tried to explain that it may be due to the way how my monsters and NPCs react to being shot by archers. I got these "tactics" (common sense) from experiences with SCA battles and other stuff and that's why these tactics (like hiding) were the logical choice for even not very intelligent opponents. 

All I wanted to say and did say:
If you envision combat different to us... and experience the outcome different (with archers being unbalanced in your games)... then don't try to convince others with other experiences that they are unbalanced. I play a rather simple game too and it works.

As for tumbling and armour: The SRD states:

*Tumble (DEX; TRAINED ONLY; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)

The character can't use this skill if the character's speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot.*

I think I remember similar wording from the PHB.


----------



## Berk (Dec 12, 2002)

In the words of the great late Sam Kinison.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## IceBear (Dec 12, 2002)

BTW - I understand the rant about how archers really worked in the real world, but in D&D the one melee fighter is probably equivalent to many real world fighters and thus we're back to the teamwork thing.  The melee fighter(s) is keeping the enemy away from the archer so he can be effective - like in your rant.

Anyway, I agree that archer probably isn't as glorious and honorable as compared to melee combat, and I think my players feel the same way.  They might use missle weapons at the beginning of combat, but they pretty much switch to melee within a couple of rounds as I think they don't get as much satisifaction out of defeating their enemies unless it's hand to hand.

And as I've been saying for awhile - D&D is a game.  If a player (or a few) aren't enjoying the game then it's up to the DM to provide that enjoyment.  Some people enjoy being the meat shield that helps defend the party while someone else gets the kill.  Others need to kill the monsters to have fun.  If the DM has to pull some drastic measures in order to make everyone happy, then that's what (s)he needs to do.

IceBear


----------



## Corwin the Confused (Dec 12, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Just for the record, while I don't deny that the archers at Agincourt had all the advantages you describe, the site you link to is not what I would call a rigorous critical historical source.   So, while I don't disagree with your assertions, neither do I necessarily endorse everything that might be concluded by reading the site in question. *




Hmmmmm, did I ask for your endorsement of my point? I think not. Iff you can find a more "rigorous critical historical source" please feel free to post it. But I think my point was made by both of these fly-by-night sites. And this has little to do with my final point which was the main point.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> As for tumbling and armour: The SRD states:
> 
> Tumble (DEX; TRAINED ONLY; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)
> ...




I have never caught that wording before.  My mistake.  However, since it is likely that the archer is using dex for a good portion of their AC (not in heavy armor) I imagine a majority of archers would still be able to tumble.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> LokiDR, not to rant again... but all I did say in my last ranting posts was that my experiences didn't confirm your posted experiences with archers and I tried to explain that it may be due to the way how my monsters and NPCs react to being shot by archers. I got these "tactics" (common sense) from experiences with SCA battles and other stuff and that's why these tactics (like hiding) were the logical choice for even not very intelligent opponents.
> 
> ...




I was refering more to DM choice of encounters than specific actions.  There are such things as not intelligent enemies.  As for hidding, if the archer has shot at you already, hiding would just mean you are pinned down.  Also, hiding isn't an option for all creatures/terains.  Those are more decisions for the DM which may favor archers.

My experiences come from a variety of sources, and others have added their own.  I am not trying to convince you archers are unbalanced in your game, because you seem already do this naturally.  Other DMs may not.  Not every DM handles every aspect of the game with the most skill.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 12, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I didn't read the book.  I don't recal a similar situation from The Lord of the Rings though. *




Bard _the Bowman_ shot Smaug through the heart with an arrow, slaying what was possibly the most powerful dragon left alive in Middle-Earth. No one ever engaged Smaug in sword swinging combat.

As for a similar situation in LotR, In the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas, using his bow primarily, has a kill count that tends to consistently exceed Gimli the axe wielder.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 12, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *As for a similar situation in LotR, In the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas, using his bow primarily, has a kill count that tends to consistently exceed Gimli the axe wielder. *




Bad example, actually.  Legolas only leads in the very beginning of the siege, with 9 kills to Gimli's 2.  They then stay even through most of the battle, with Gimli winning with 42 kills to Legolas' 41.  Legolas also runs out of arrows during at least one phase of the siege.  I just finished reading it, and then went just now to double-check, after you mentioned.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 12, 2002)

I'd say Gimli wasn't as high level as Legolas, anyway. He couldn't even jump over that gap in the swaying bridge, sheesh! Hero of the dwarven people my [censored ].


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 12, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Bad example, actually.  Legolas only leads in the very beginning of the siege, with 9 kills to Gimli's 2.  They then stay even through most of the battle, with Gimli winning with 42 kills to Legolas' 41.  Legolas also runs out of arrows during at least one phase of the siege.  I just finished reading it, and then went just now to double-check, after you mentioned. *




Gimli only wins in the end because Legolas ran out of arrows and had to restock.


----------



## Berk (Dec 12, 2002)

Please note that the lethality of an arrow is almost always over rated.


----------



## shadowcaster007 (Dec 12, 2002)

I play a rogue/fighter with plans for deepwoods sniper in RttToEE. As an archer she's pretty cool. However I know that the Tanks in our party will out perform me any day.  
Plus in a huge dungeon like this amunition is my biggest enemy. I only have so many arrows in my quiver. When I run out that's it. I find myself pulling my rapier and getting in the thick of it more and more saving the arrows for a "bigger" encounter. I may be the best archer in the world but if I'm out of arrows I'm not worth a hill of beans.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the archer.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 12, 2002)

shadowcaster007 said:
			
		

> *I play a rogue/fighter with plans for deepwoods sniper in RttToEE. As an archer she's pretty cool. However I know that the Tanks in our party will out perform me any day.
> Plus in a huge dungeon like this amunition is my biggest enemy. I only have so many arrows in my quiver. When I run out that's it. I find myself pulling my rapier and getting in the thick of it more and more saving the arrows for a "bigger" encounter. I may be the best archer in the world but if I'm out of arrows I'm not worth a hill of beans.
> I don't think there's anything wrong with the archer. *




Are you unable to get out?  Do any enemies use arrows you could loot?  How many could you bring with you in a bag of holding?  Does it take some fun out of the game, counting all those arrows?  It's different for everyone, but these are some reasons why arrow counting isn't the best method for keeping archers from out-shining others.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 12, 2002)

As a DM I'm counting arrows, potions, etc for the PCs (can't trust them to be honest you know ) and for the NPCs.  Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

IceBear


----------



## Thanee (Dec 13, 2002)

In our campaign we are travelling in the Underdark (some 3-part AD&D campaign played with D&D3E) with 1 pure archer-type character (Drow Fighter/Order of the Bow Initiate 9th level + 2 ECL), 1 archer-type/caster character (Lightfoot Halfling Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster 12th level (moi)), 2 pure melee-type characters (Human Ranger/Fighter/Shadowdancer 11th level, and Shield Dwarf Fighter 11th level (NPC)) and 2 melee-type/caster characters (Gold Dwarf Cleric 12th level and Human Fighter/Psion/Metamind 11th level).

The 2 archers go through quite a few arrows recently, but in our bag of holding we carry several hundred arrows, so supply is not really a problem. Also with 2 characters who can cast GMW (+3 and +4), we rarely run out of magic arrows, altho usually a single casting is enough for the day (30 arrows for the drow and 20 for me).

Sometimes the archers outperform the meleers, but I can't really say they always do.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 13, 2002)

A nice way to re-use arrows, is to collect the used ones and let the party wizard cast Mending on them, when there is time to do so. One spell per arrow, but still better than running out of arrows! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## SAUG (Dec 13, 2002)

Hehe...reminds me a bit of this wood-elf ranger/fighter/lasher with with all the archer tweaks and specialization. Fought with a longsword and a whip. Lots of attacks, died at 9th from 4th level cleric's hold person  *sob*.

Sorry slightly off topic


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2002)

> *Lots of attacks, died at 9th from 4th level cleric's hold person  *sob*.*




Hold Persons don't kill people, CDGs kill people...

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 15, 2002)

I prefer RPGs for killing

Rocket
Propelled
Grenade


----------



## Majik (Jan 14, 2005)

*Meele characters can also use bow!*

Hi,

 I haven't read all the post from this thread... But one thing that did strike me is that nobody considers the bow-shoting option melee characters have... I myself rarely play tanks, but I would definetely get a good bow next to my good meele weapon.....

 The tactic of waiting for your enemies while raining a hail of arrows on them becomes much more worthwhile... Taking the group example at the beginning of 2 meele and 2 archer characters: you suddenly have 4 characters shooting bows.... Even if the meele characters don't hit that often, its worth it..... And picture the sweat on the archers brow  The meele characters can easily chuck away their bows and grab their readied swords!!! I bet you the archers will treat the meele guys with more respect!!!!!!!!!!!

 Apart from that, my DM never lets our opponents apear far away! It would of mad him in anyway! Archers and mages, sorcerer and druids would plug the creatures down before they came in anywhere near where they could do us harm!

  Majik


----------



## Tatsukun (Jan 15, 2005)

Majik said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I haven't read all the post from this thread... But one thing that did strike me is that nobody considers the bow-shoting option melee characters have... I myself rarely play tanks, but I would definetely get a good bow next to my good meele weapon.....
> 
> ...




Well, this thread isn't really that relevant now. The enhancement bonuses from bows and arrows no longer stack. Also, they have removed the "You can not damage a weapon with an enhancement bonus higher than that of your weapon" rule. 

Long story short, archers got a good (needed) nerfing in my rarely humble opinion. 

      -Tatsu


----------

