I'm annoyed at archers.

[ConcreteBuddha]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.