D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[LuYangShih]

I agree that Archers are overpowered as is. Give an Archer fly and he can take out a significant portion of the monster population with little to no risk, not to mention all the other factors that have been mentioned here. I hope 3.5E will fix this, but I don't know if it can accomplish balance when Archery is just basically superior to melee combat in the end.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Al's analysis on prestige classes is somewhat incomplete here. One of the advantages that archers have is this: all their prestige classes have pretty much the same prerequisites. It isn't much harder to be a Fighter/Ranger/Wizard/Arcane Archer/Order of the Bow Initiate/Deepwood Sniper than it is to be a Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer.

This is true of some melee prestige classes as well but generally, the melee prestige classes aren't nearly as compatible in terms of focus.

Even with all that, I still think the disadvantages of archery are sufficient to balance it--assuming that manyshot isn't available and 3.0e haste is. With 3.5e Haste AND Manyshot, I can't see it as anything other than a problem--and one that's getting worse with each new 3.5e tidbit.

Al,

It seems that, based on your analysis, the difference in power seems to come down to 2 things: prestige classes and magic. Because of that, I would suggest that the problems therefore lie in the magical abilites and the prestige classes available to archers, not archery as a whole.

Example - if you do not allow arrow and bow bonuses to stack, but instead make them overlap, you negate a great deal of the inequity between the archer and the melee fighter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Out of curiousity, where in the rules do you get this.

He doesn't.

From the FAQ: "Bows and slings don't require an action to reload."

-Hyp.

 

[Dimwhit]

He doesn't. From the FAQ: "Bows and slings don't require an action to reload."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Falconer]

Oh well, it's been some time since I've said anything in the forms... but I think I'll touch on this one for once.

One, I feel GMW wasn't broken. A +5 bonus at level 15 is fitting for that level of spellcaster. +4/level I feel might be a little slow. But still in line. I think 3e has gone a long way towards making non-casters plenty powerfull at higher levels. In fact, a mage has trouble matching the damage output of the good old slicing/dicing meat shield under many circumstances.

On arrows.. . 50 arrows a pop may be overkill. 3X the casters level might be more appropriate for ammunition IMO. 30 arrows doesn't last that long at 10th level.

The reason that having enchanted ammunition is the large numbers of monsters that require bonuses to hit at mid and high levels. The bow cannot impart this and is the only weapon comparable to a melee weapon. And well buying ammo is REDICULOUSLY expensive. In order to make a viable archer character. There MUST be some source of inexpensive ammo. GMW has been used largely to date because it's about the only way to fill this requirement.

Stacking I think was the wrong answer as others have posted in 1e (my favorite incarnation of D&D still to this day). The bow was limited to +1 and the arrows to +4. So you never exceeded the +5.

I think the best answer is already in the rules. Bonuses of the same type do not stack. The exception for missile weapons I think was wrong. I'd say take the best of weapon or ammunition but not both. A +3 bow wouldn't care if you had +1 +2 or +3 arrows, only in the case of +4 or +5 ammunition would it matter.

Furthermore, in this case, whatever you can have on a single melee weapon you'll never exceed on the missile weapon. +5 +enhancements. The big disagreement I see is the potential for +10/+10. And I also feel that this is abusive and shouldn't qualify for stacking like this.

I pointed out ages ago... that the way that Wizards has done many weapons overly empowers multiple attacks (look at shuriken). With one attack I can tos 3 flaming, shocking, icing, returning +1, shuriken. Throw in everyone's favourite whipping boy GMW and those are +5. Not bad for dinky 1point weapons! It's all from the bonuses. And that's using *one* attack so full movement applies. Shoot on the move and it's ugly.

I think the best way to state it is 3e is overprone to power-gaming tactics. This is true of many RPG's. The only tried and true defense is for the DM to keep things in line.

As many have stated. Many situations are completely wrong for archers. Even quick single level spells such as fog or even an obscuring illusion render ranged attacks ineffective. Quickly reducing things to melee range. Indoor/underground encounters are RARELY suited to the use of ranged weapons.

People point out repeatedly within 30' rules... within 30' an archer CAN"T stay out of range! Even in heavy armour and without movement enhancers a fighter can charge 30' easily and get in his attack. I haven't played 3e much lately but unless haste has been seriously errata'd one of the best uses of the extra partial action is to use it to move! Move then use your full attack.

Also I'll point out everything is optional. The one initiate of the bow... this smacks of the old 2.5E problem (now we're going to have a 3.5E I take it). Where people would run out and buy a book just to get some new little trick and claim because it was in the published books the DM had to use it. The DMG is pretty clear that the DM is free to disallow or change things that are imbalanced. I still hold that anything that ISN"T core rulebook needs DM approval and is pure optional. Keeps abuse down nicely.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

As a DM, what annoys me the most about an Archer is the ability to step back 5' and resume firing tons of arrows at the guy who just charged them. While I can accept ranged supremacy, once I get my minions to engage the archer in melee I expect the fight to become a brawl. That 5' backward followed by 2 to 5 arrows just infuriates me.

I could houserule it but my group likes playing by the book.

So I've taken to try sundering the bow of any archer character who insist on firing within charging range of a melee opponent. Eh.

Bows are fairly fragile and archer pretty much always have a lower melee bonus than ranged. If you're feeling particularly devious you can even mount a fairly solid argumentation in favor of denying the enchantment bonus of a bow in a melee opposed roll but YMMV.

As a result, you'll win the opposed test fairly often and even if the attacker doesn't have the sunder feat, the archer usually can't benefit from an AoO. If you do have Sunder, go to town.

Bows are fairly fragile. Let's say it has as many HP as a battle axe; Hardness 5, HP 5.

A few wrecked high priced bow is all it takes to reconcile a DM with archery. Seeing a 50K bow bites the dust is even more satisfying than a dead PC.

 

[Dimwhit]

Here's my question, tough. And I'm sure this has been answered. But if GMW is cast on the bow, say to +4, does that mean you need a +4 weapon to break it? Or does the +4 of the bow have to be its full-time enchantment bonus and not a temporary spell effect?

 

[Falconer]

The spell it pretty specific is treated as a +X weapon. So it gains temporary hardness etc.

Though I was about to say to Mal Malenkirk. A better way to handle it is to cut the bowstring. No way that PC is gonna have that bow restrung in the middle of a melee fight. And furthermore I find most PC's don't even bring staples such as extra bowstrings or arrowheads to fletch themselves keeping themselves busy on the trail. This is more a personal opinion because I have ALWAYS felt the 3e way of handling sundering is FUNDAMENTALLY broken.

A little off-topic. But in real life it's far easier to sunder a large sword or other big weapon than a small dagger. (problems of metallurgy and scaling) To manage to hit the dagger w/ enough force to break it will result in the thing being bashed out of the other guys hands more often than not rather than breaking. Similarly attacking something in someones hands and mobile isn't nearly as easy as they make it. Also breaking an expensive weapon is pretty low IMO. (Then again I think that all the litltle +'s lin weapon construction should count towards total breakability, eg max +10 enchantment).

As you've pointed out. I forgot to say the charge action doesn't result in an AoO becauuse the missile weapon doesn't grant it. And this leaves you a lot of latitude for other nasty attacks such as improved trip or similar.

Silly question. Does wounding stack? EG if hit once w/ a wounding weapon then again is the net +2 damage a turn until bandaged?

 

[Caliber]

Silly question. Does wounding stack? EG if hit once w/ a wounding weapon then again is the net +2 damage a turn until bandaged?

I'm not sure where you're going, but yes Wounding "stacks".

Although, from a mathmatical standpoint, its more advantageous to just use a Flaming weapon, or some such.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If the Archer is firing from further away than you can reach, then they aren't getting the much of the benefits of the Bracers, Point Blank Shot, or Weapon Specialization, nullifying most of their benefits. At that point, the melee fighter is almost as good as the ranged fighter at ranged combat.

Rapid shot and the double enhancement bonus. And the archer does have the benefit of distance now: The melee boy has to close to him, while the archer can fire away happily. Then the melee fighter is close enough, and the archer can attack him with his full bonuses up.

If you shoot and run, you are getting one shot. Or maybe more than one at a sever BAB penalty if you use Manyshot. And if you shoot and run, you once again are not getting much benefit from your "within 30 feet" feats and equipment.

The thing is: the melee fighter won't get any benefit from his melee weapon or his melee feats.

And Hunters Mercy is only available in Faerun, so if you are in Greyhawk, it isn't an option.

That's really weak. It doesn't say anywhere that you can't use that spell in grayhawk. If we're taking any wizards material into account, we take it all into account. If not, we're talking core rules here, and nothing else.

As an adventurer you are able to set up sniping nests on a regular basis?

Preparation is everything...

Cleave comes up anytime you are facing more than one opponent. That you are unable to figure this out is surprising, but given your lack of grasp on other rules, maybe it should not be.

I'd really like it if you stop your arrogant manner, especially with your grasp on the rules, which is less-than-perfect, as you've shown.

Without his bow, an archer is completely useless. Instead of being a damage causing machine, he is a liability, the qeuivalent of an NPC Warrior class cohort along for the ride.

So what? So is the spellcaster without his spells, or the melee warrior without his weapon.

And those rules are even more disadvantageous for the archer. Gosh, that makes your case seem so much better. Not only can you break the archer's bow, but you can do it using rules that make it easier to do than when trying to break other weapons.

This tactic of severing the archer's weapon might be quite nice, but I don't like it. Not only is it a cheap trick, but it can also be used against any other equipment. And any character will radically lose effectiveness if he loses his equipment (except monks and brawlers, maybe).

Besides, if you want to relieve an archer of his bow without breaking it, just disarm him. The opposed roll will be almost trivially easy for your typical melee combatant, given the fact that the archer is nonproficient with the bow as a melee weapon, can't use any of his ranged feats to bump his AB, and is otherwise at a huge disadvantage.

For this, you'll have to get to the archer, which will likely be shielded by his allies, far enough away, and quick enough with his light armor - so you'll have problems closing on him.

As often as you drop enemies, you will be likely to Cleave. Most fighters will get an extra atack out of Cleave every second or third round at least, more in some cases.

Assuming the battle is fought against several weaker foes without reach that gang up on one fighter.

Further, switching back and forth between weapons like that is somewhat off kilter. It assumes that you have an action, stop doing it, and wait for others to take their action.

So is moving away from somewone to drink a potion: as you walk away from him, he'll follow you. And suddenly battle's very complicated. I don't like those overly-realistic RPGs and Table Top Games, because they're so much work, so we stick to the rules as presented

Sure, the gauntlet is "always on your hand", but trying to use it while concentrating on using a bow (a weapon that requires two hands to use) isn't supported by the rules.

It isn't forbidden by them, either. And with the rate of fire on higher levels (up to 1 shot a second), you don't really concentrate much: you just fire away.

Finally, remember what the AoO we are talkiing about and that you are trying to make is intended to prevent: someone with a reach weapon from disarming or sundering your bow. A spiked gauntlet isn't going to be very valuable at making an AoO against someone using a reach weapon. Plus, by "unarming" the bow, you make it that much more vulnerable to being sundered or disarmed (effectively making it a non-weapon object held in one hand, so you can use the "strike an object" rules and ignore bonuses for holding it in two hands). Even if you could do the spiked gauntlet trick, you have effectively traded a 1d4 AoO for making your primary attack mode that much more vulnerable to being destroyed or taken. Not a smart trade-off.

Another thing that makes sense by the rules only: If I had a bow in one hand and a gauntlet on the other, and someone tried to sunder my weapon with a glaive or something, I'd deflect that strike with my gauntlet, confident that the blade won't pierce the links. But that's not how the rules work...

Example - if you do not allow arrow and bow bonuses to stack, but instead make them overlap, you negate a great deal of the inequity between the archer and the melee fighter.

As I, and several others, have suggested. We use that now in one of our campaigns where I play an archer (and hopefully in the other as well), and now everyone's happy: the DM because my archer has +4 attack/damage more just because he can ensorcel bow and ammo, and me because I now don't have to bother to use another two 5th-level slots to create 100 magical arrows that last all day, and I can now use these slots to get another attack spell and enhance the axe of our party tank.

I think the archer is going to lose his bow.

I don't think so. A good DM will find other way that doesn't invilve resorting to send sundering opponents the archers' way on a regular basis.

And melee weapons can be destroyed as well...