D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[Hypersmurf]

Let's say its a rifle competition. One guy shows up and screws his gun into a spectacular tripod that holds it perfectly steady. The other guy has a top of the line scope allowing for pinpoint targetting, but uses his own two hands to line it up in his sights and the strength of his arms to maintain absolute precision.

Who's more impressive? The second marksman, without question.

Without question?

Two random Elven Commoner-1s off the street are watching. They ask if they can have a go.

When they both use off-the-shelf equipment, they're exactly equal. And yet when one uses the tripod, and the other uses the scope, the scope-elf shoots 15% better than the tripod-elf.

Then they swap, and the other elf shoots better.

The difference is entirely in the scope. How is that less of a crutch than the tripod?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliber]

Kai Lord, while I don't totally disagree with you (I don't feel archery is even half as bad as some would make it, and I think the changes to archery will knock it down just enought) I can't say your arguments hold much weight.

This is a discussion on whether or not mechanically an archer is better than a meeler. It does not matter if Alan the Archer is played by a power gamer and never moves beyond a sheet of numbers while Gary the Greatsworder is a brilliant, vibrant character that lives on in the minds of the other players forever.

We're talking pure mechanics. And in a discussion like that, using reasoning like I don't consider that item because I don't like it, so archers aren't overpowered, is (not to be insulting) a foolish position.

To hold a mechanic discussion you have to consider all of the mechanics. Leaving out those not to taste will simply result in faulty equations (I hate trig but if I skip that part of the physics equation ... well all I have to say is )

That point out of the way ...

Elder Basilisk -

While I can see your point on the Haste change favoring archers (basicly removing a meelers easiest way to get a full attack and a move) I am confused by your reference to Manyshot.

Manyshot isn't a new feat introduced in 3.5. In fact, it was a fully statted new non-Epic feat from the ELH (much like the other feat in the book which allowed you to make stronger magic items)

Note however that the Manyshot included in 3.5 is much weaker than the one that exists in 3.0 now. Currently, Manyshot gives you a -2 to hit when firing more than one arrow (although the feat's designer reccommended an extra -2 per arrow over 2, using that is completely a House Rule however)

In 3.5, 2 arrows gives you a -4 right off the bat. 3 is a -6 while 4 is -8 (looks like they increased the starting negative AND took Andy's reccommendation)

I don't see how that gives archers more (in fact it looks to take away, although Multishot without Andy's reccommended change WAS sick)

 

[LokiDR]

Tell it like it is, Hyp.

This is a rules debate. The rules provide methods for items to be created and what they cost on an "average" market. The rules also give guidelines for how much money you should have at what level. These rules exist as part of the balance of the game. If you toss them out, you aren't playing same game written in the books. That can be fun, but if you change or ignore rules, how can you say the rules are fine?

A different view. A character who can aquire, perhaps with some significant amount of work, magic items they can afford is more powerful than a character who can not. So, to make matters "fair", characters should have the same chance to get items. Since there are items in the DMG, I have to assume characters were meant to get them. So, the rules balance characters on the basis of wealth, not whim of the DM.

A good DM can fix bad rules. If you just hand wave items away because you don't like them, you are calling the rules bad. All you do by making bracers of archer et al rare is admit that they are too good, and by extention, archers under the standard rules that use them are too good.

 

[Kai Lord]

Kai Lord, while I don't totally disagree with you (I don't feel archery is even half as bad as some would make it, and I think the changes to archery will knock it down just enought) I can't say your arguments hold much weight.

This is a discussion on whether or not mechanically an archer is better than a meeler. It does not matter if Alan the Archer is played by a power gamer and never moves beyond a sheet of numbers while Gary the Greatsworder is a brilliant, vibrant character that lives on in the minds of the other players forever.

We're talking pure mechanics. And in a discussion like that, using reasoning like I don't consider that item because I don't like it, so archers aren't overpowered, is (not to be insulting) a foolish position.

To hold a mechanic discussion you have to consider all of the mechanics. Leaving out those not to taste will simply result in faulty equations (I hate trig but if I skip that part of the physics equation ... well all I have to say is )

Not to be insulting but you totally missed my point. Totally. I originally stated that for every obscure magic item that favors the archer, there are one or three that favor the swordsman, and even gave the examples of belts of giant strength and such.

Hypersmurf took issue with the fact that I used the word "obscure" to describe Bracers of Archery and that got us on a different discussion about why I consider them to be obscure. It doesn't change my original point (the one you missed ) which was in direct regard to the issue of how an archer compares to a swordsman from a mechanical perspective.

So, just so we're clear, to sum up:

1. Archer with lots of random magical doodads: Pretty equivalent to a Swordsman with lots of random magical doodads so why waste time on the doodads.

2. Bracers of Archery are dumb.

Got it?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Did that analysis take in to account that archer usually gets to do a full attack each round of combat, while meleers have to close in and possibly adjust position during combat?

Nope, nor does it attempt to weigh the rounds where the archer does have to move, and only gets one shot. It's a "full attack round versus full attack round" comparison.

In my experience, having done a lot of systematic analyses for D&D and other systems, and having seen a bunch of them done, attempting to simulate the flow of an RPG combat is an exercise in false accuracy. You don't get real results, you get whatever results the simulator built into the system. That's why I try to keep mine both simple and fairly comprehensive (hence, the range of opponents, and a few variations on the archer's situation), and not say, "This one (with the archer within 30 feet but without bracers of archery, for example) is the authoritative way to measure the archer's power."

My analysis does not attempt to answer the question, "Which is more powerful, the archer or the greatsword fighter." Rather, it attempts to give some data points on which to base your opinion (which must by necessity include your intuitive weighting of factors not easily simulated) on the issue.

My own opinion on the issue is that the archer benefits from having more possibilities to stack items on. That is, if you're just going to have a +3 greatsword and a +3 longbow, then the greatsword fighter is superior. But the greatsword fighter has relatively few ways to buff himself up: He can get strength increases, or he can get a more magical sword. The archer, on the other hand, has far more opportunity to buff himself: he's can get a stat buff (which, admittedly, doesn't help him as much), he can get a more magical longbow. In addition, he can get more magical arrows, and he can get bracers of archery, and he could buff his secondary stat (Strength, assuming he has a mighty bow available), and all of that stuff interacts wonderfully with his additional attack per round courtesy of Rapid Shot.

Is it "fair" to compare an archer with many more magical items and spells all of which increase his damage output to a swordsman who doesn't? Perhaps not. But the fact of the matter is that that's how D&D3 works -- it's generally easier to layer several different effects (the GMW and the Cat's Grace and the Bull's Strength and the party mage making a Bracers of Archery) than it is to push one item or effect up to ridiculous levels (enhanced, maximized Bull's Strength, or a +4 or +5 Greatsword, for example). I don't know if that's fair, but that seems to me to be how it is.

 

[Victim]

You and I obviously have very different opinions of what's stupid in a campaign. Items that wussify the heroes are right out for me, but apparently you're arguing in favor of anything that confers a substantial statistical bonus to a character's combat effectiveness. I take it all the mid level fighters in your campaigns are all running around with double monkey-gripped Mercurial Greatswords? I mean, if they could afford it they'd be stupid not to....

You meant they'd be stupid to do so, right? Attacking at -6 (or -8 if the monkey grip penalty is applied for each weapon) while losing your 2 handed bonus and needing two magic weapons isn't the best way to increase your damage.

Weapons with vanilla bonuses are pretty much staple in any campaign. Any Wondrous Item gets into the realm of obscure advantages, because they all vary in their existence from campaign to campaign.

Because to many, "Crazy Merlin's Discount Magic Shop" with rows of magic Bracers priced to be competitive with the DMG is quite stupid indeed....

It's completely out of the realm of possibility for spellcasters to take item creation feats and use them effectively. You're right. Bracers of Archery are not only kick ass, as you put, but they're also very cheap.

A guy with bracers could dig down too, and waste your hero. I can dig down and do math without a calculator, too. It wouldn't make me heroic, though. I'd be pretty stupid for not using a useful tool. Even if I could do things very quickly in my head, it'd still be worth it to check it on the machine. If other people were depending on me, not using artificial aid is overly prideful.

I wouldn't consider the original Manyshot to be a mainstream feat.

 

[Caliber]

Not to be insulting but you totally missed my point. Totally. I originally stated that for every obscure magic item that favors the archer, there are one or three that favor the swordsman, and even gave the examples of belts of giant strength and such.

Hypersmurf took issue with the fact that I used the word "obscure" to describe Bracers of Archery and that got us on a different discussion about why I consider them to be obscure. It doesn't change my original point (the one you missed ) which was in direct regard to the issue of how an archer compares to a swordsman from a mechanical perspective.

So, just so we're clear, to sum up:

1. Archer with lots of random magical doodads: Pretty equivalent to a Swordsman with lots of random magical doodads so why waste time on the doodads.

2. Bracers of Archery are dumb.

Got it?

Actually I read that one too. But I agree with Hyp, that Bracers of Archery are NOT obscure for an archer. And neither is a Belt of Giant-kind.

These statistical analysises can't really tell you too much, because theres almost always a better build out there, a better number cruncher who is able to squeeze out a few more bonuses to hit or damage.

But you can at least use the basics. I wouldn't have minded if Mike had included info for the Greatsword guy using some stuff too (at least Power Attack and a Belt of Giant's Strength)

Don't get me wrong, I thought the analysis was great and thanks for the effort, by the way.

My post was trying to say that in a mechanical argument, you have to use all the mechanics at your disposal, whether you consider them obscure or not.

The only problem is the sheer number of mechanics available is somewhat baffling.

Hope that cleared something up (to be honest I think I'm more confused than when I started ... chalk it up to being up late I guess)

 

[Kai Lord]

Without question?

Two random Elven Commoner-1s off the street are watching. They ask if they can have a go.

When they both use off-the-shelf equipment, they're exactly equal. And yet when one uses the tripod, and the other uses the scope, the scope-elf shoots 15% better than the tripod-elf.

Then they swap, and the other elf shoots better.

The difference is entirely in the scope. How is that less of a crutch than the tripod?

-Hyp.

Because the tripod is doing work that the shooters should be doing. You can lean on crutches, but that doesn't mean you'll run faster than someone who doesn't use them.

 

[LokiDR]

Mike Sullivan makes a good point about magic items.

Archers have more different items, but taking one plus off the most enchanted item pays for the rest, bonuses being squared and all. Melee don't have many extra "doo-dads", just more magic in the sword.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Elder Basilisk -

While I can see your point on the Haste change favoring archers (basicly removing a meelers easiest way to get a full attack and a move)

Actually, I'm curious--what are the other ways? The only ones I can think of:

1. 5' step (doesn't really count).
2. Wizard grabs the fighter and casts dimension door/etc. (Doesn't really count either).
3. Supreme Cleave (As per Cavalier, Master Samurai and a few other prestige classes; only works if there's a bunch of weakened (or weak) enemies 5' apart)
4. The Cavalier's mounted full attack prestige class ability.
5. 5' step, quickened polymorph self or Righteous Might, quickdraw a glaive and attack someone who started the round 25 feet away from you.

None of those are practical or common enough to have a significant impact on the balance of melee vs. ranged though.

I am confused by your reference to Manyshot.

Manyshot isn't a new feat introduced in 3.5. In fact, it was a fully statted new non-Epic feat from the ELH (much like the other feat in the book which allowed you to make stronger magic items)

Note however that the Manyshot included in 3.5 is much weaker than the one that exists in 3.0 now. Currently, Manyshot gives you a -2 to hit when firing more than one arrow (although the feat's designer reccommended an extra -2 per arrow over 2, using that is completely a House Rule however)

In 3.5, 2 arrows gives you a -4 right off the bat. 3 is a -6 while 4 is -8 (looks like they increased the starting negative AND took Andy's reccommendation)

I don't see how that gives archers more (in fact it looks to take away, although Multishot without Andy's reccommended change WAS sick)

I suppose it takes away if you're using the epic handbook version of the feat. If you're playing in a campaign that doesn't use the ELH but will be using 3.5e however (such as any of the RPGA Living Campaigns), the inclusion of Manyshot in the core rules will have a definite impact on the melee/ranged balance.

That said, even the new manyshot will be pretty ridiculous. When 7th level archers can have +20 to hit while using rapid shot (OK, so it was a fully buffed archer cleric--+1 bow, +2 arrows (GMW), 20 dex (cat's grace), WP focus, Bracers of Archery, bless, divine favor, divine power, and point blank shot) I don't think that the penalties for firing even four arrows at once are going to make archers miss. By the time they can shoot that many arrows, the penalties will be insignificant. (Not that it would've made a difference for my cleric either).