D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Archer changes

[Storm Raven]

Okay, here's the build.

Nope, Sorry. I deny the validity of your test. Using your tricked out archer against standard NPCs from the DMG is inherently stupid. You are cooking the books to make the PC have an easy time. Basically, you are giving the PC huge advantages (like having lots of buff spells on him) that you aren't giving his opposition. It is a flawed and essentially useless comparison.

Therefore, everything you posted concerning the "matchups" is crap. I won't even bother to make a meleeist for comparison until you actually compare the archer to actual opposition and not straw men.

 

[Fenes 2]

Guys, think it through: If you party is constantly facing tricked-to-the-gills classed NPCs with optimized gear, then by all means, use those as test opponents. If your party is mainly going up against threats fresh out of the MM, then use those.

In the end, it comes down to whether or not the archer or melee in question is unbalanced in your campaign.

There is no "standard" D&D.

Edit: As an example, I had to ban a completely legal core cleric without any magic items because he was seriously overpowered compared to a barbarian with FR feats and a fighter with a homebrew prestige class (duelist with some blade dancer abilities) OA, Splatbook and FR feats and a magic rapier.

 

[LokiDR]

Nope, Sorry. I deny the validity of your test. Using your tricked out archer against standard NPCs from the DMG is inherently stupid. You are cooking the books to make the PC have an easy time. Basically, you are giving the PC huge advantages (like having lots of buff spells on him) that you aren't giving his opposition. It is a flawed and essentially useless comparison.

Therefore, everything you posted concerning the "matchups" is crap. I won't even bother to make a meleeist for comparison until you actually compare the archer to actual opposition and not straw men.

Did you not read the explanation of this test? It is assumed that the PCs will win, the question is how fast and how effectively. The wizard and cleric had their own range of several buffs. These combats were performed like most combats in games I have played (offical and homebrew): the PCs have their day long buffs and face oppents who are a threat but beatable.

You are just being petulant.

 

[Storm Raven]

Did you not read the explanation of this test? It is assumed that the PCs will win, the question is how fast and how effectively. The wizard and cleric had their own range of several buffs. These combats were performed like most combats in games I have played (offical and homebrew): the PCs have their day long buffs and face oppents who are a threat but beatable.

No, it is that the test used silly criteria. For example, in the barbarian vs. archer contest, the barbarian was held to be at a disadvantage because he would have to use his fists in close combat, while the archer would use his short sword. This is stupid. Assuming that a 12th level barbarian can't even carry around a normal dagger or shortsword, let alone cheap (compared to his total wealth) masterwork versions of these weapons is just idiotic. It skews the results, badly.

Assuming that the PCs weapons are invulnerable to sunder because he has access to a raft of greater magic weapon spells, but the opponent cannot is also stupid. It is assuming the PC has access to a bunch of temporary (external) resources that you deny to the opponent. Using "stock" NPCs from the DMG and then not putting any thought at all into how they operate is a poor test of any character's abilities.

These sorts of stupid elements show up in the "test", which makes them entirely invalid as a test. How many individuals have you found who don't carry a light weapon around (PC or NPC)? How many NPCs does your party encounter who are exactly like the dumbed down versions found in the DMG? I think the answers to those questions will explain why the test is invalid.

 

[Al]

Storm Raven:

If you can find a series of impartial tests for the archer and the meleeist to go through, then I'll happily submit my build to them.

I generally use DMG characters as litmus tests as these are properly impartial, if slightly weak. The point is that if I created a series of 12th level characters, you would argue I skewed it to favour the archer. If you created the characters, I would be skeptical if the meleeist came out on top.

So like I said, find a better impartial test and I'll happily submit to it. If not, then I suggest you submit to the current impartial test criteria I've put out or concede by default.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'd say just remove the rogue encounter. A rogues "power" comes from skills, but in a duel at noon scenario those skills don't come into play, so the rogue is just meat to be shot up.


edit to add also the archer while great for the purposes for this test, is someone I'd likely never see. Those arrows are cool, but I've yet to see anyone actually make or buy magic arrows of any type sicne they are just too expensive. Having them I beleive exagerates the stacking problem, by hainvg them in a one shot scenario where you can feel free to unload all 50 of them, and not save them like someone would in a real game if they ahppened to get them off of a corpse of a really dumb man who had them built.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you can find a series of impartial tests for the archer and the meleeist to go through, then I'll happily submit my build to them.

I generally use DMG characters as litmus tests as these are properly impartial, if slightly weak. The point is that if I created a series of 12th level characters, you would argue I skewed it to favour the archer. If you created the characters, I would be skeptical if the meleeist came out on top.

No, the DMG characters are poorly designed quick sketches of NPCs. Using them right out of the box and grabbing on to minor details, like the barbarian not being explicitly equipped with a dagger or other light weapon is a stupid test under any circusmtance. Your problem is that you don't even understand why your test has no validity.

So like I said, find a better impartial test and I'll happily submit to it. If not, then I suggest you submit to the current impartial test criteria I've put out or concede by default.

Design the NPC opponents intelligently, like you would if they were going to be used as major opposition for a party (as 12th level characters would). Using stock NPCs directly out of the book only demonstrates that the stock NPCs are poorly and foolishly designed and equipped.

 

[LokiDR]

No, it is that the test used silly criteria. For example, in the barbarian vs. archer contest, the barbarian was held to be at a disadvantage because he would have to use his fists in close combat, while the archer would use his short sword. This is stupid. Assuming that a 12th level barbarian can't even carry around a normal dagger or shortsword, let alone cheap (compared to his total wealth) masterwork versions of these weapons is just idiotic. It skews the results, badly.

The barbarian, as published, doesn't have a light weapon. No one here wrote that character. Even if you throw the extra weapon to him (not that cheap considering NPC wealth) I don't believe you would see that much better result. Best case, Barbarian wins initive and disarms the archer: 14.5% x 85% = 12.3% chance of his success. That is assuming the archer doesn't have an extra bow and can't wait out the Barbarian's rage/haste.

Assuming that the PCs weapons are invulnerable to sunder because he has access to a raft of greater magic weapon spells, but the opponent cannot is also stupid.

PCs almost always work in groups. NPCs don't. There are any number of published encounters with only one NPC. The ground rules were set before AI posted his combats, why didn't you say something then?

It is assuming the PC has access to a bunch of temporary (external) resources that you deny to the opponent.

If the NPC had all the friends in the world, they wouldn't be standard challenges. On the other hand, an archer traveling with a cleric and a wizard is common.

Using "stock" NPCs from the DMG and then not putting any thought at all into how they operate is a poor test of any character's abilities.

They are standard challenges. As standard as you are ever going to find. And AI did give the NPCs decent tatics: buff spells on the casters, decent spellcasting choices, melee types that do more than just run up and hit the archer.

These sorts of stupid elements show up in the "test", which makes them entirely invalid as a test.

You sure like the word "stupid". I think you just can not match this kind of combat effectiveness with a melee character and complaining because of it.

How many individuals have you found who don't carry a light weapon around (PC or NPC)?

Most published NPCs I have seen. Most of the NPCs from the DMG. Would you like me to look through enemies and allies to verify this?

How many NPCs does your party encounter who are exactly like the dumbed down versions found in the DMG?

It is a standard. If melee is as good as you think it is, this should be just as much to your benefit. And I have used and seen used DMG NPCs on several occasions.

I think the answers to those questions will explain why the test is invalid.

No one has said this is a perfect test, but it is by far the most fair compareson so far. Propose a better set of opponents, or use the "weakness" of the oppents to prove melee is a better option.

You lose the compareson, so you call it invalid. AI should take your point about the barbarian, but most of the rest of what you have said is just petulance.

 

[Storm Raven]

The barbarian, as published, doesn't have a light weapon. No one here wrote that character. Even if you throw the extra weapon to him (not that cheap considering NPC wealth) I don't believe you would see that much better result.

Umm, a 10 gp short sword is "not that cheap"? Heck, using that, he wins the grapple contest handily.

PCs almost always work in groups. NPCs don't. There are any number of published encounters with only one NPC. The ground rules were set before AI posted his combats, why didn't you say something then?

No, NPCs frequently work in groups. How often do you throw your party up against a single fighter? That's just silly. Not even the WotC modules do that, almost all NPCs are found in groups.

Al said they would go up against various NPCs, he didn't say "they will go up against NPCs copied by rote from the DMG with no regard to sensibility".

If the NPC had all the friends in the world, they wouldn't be standard challenges. On the other hand, an archer traveling with a cleric and a wizard is common.

NPCs often work in groups. Most NPCs have allies, and can reasonably expect to have a minimum of support.

You sure like the word "stupid". I think you just can not match this kind of combat effectiveness with a melee character and complaining because of it.

No, I can make most of the challenges he posted single hit kills, which is among the reasons why they are silly challenges.

No one has said this is a perfect test, but it is by far the most fair compareson so far. Propose a better set of opponents, or use the "weakness" of the oppents to prove melee is a better option.

No, it is an inherently poor and therefore, unfair challenge. If the barbarian kills every one of the opponents with a single shot (as I believe he can), what will your response be then?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

No, I can make most of the challenges he posted single hit kills, which is among the reasons why they are silly challenges.

Then do it. All you have to do to show that you're entirely right, that these are silly challenges, is to make a character who bulls right through three of six (or whatever it is), then gets very high percentage chances against two of the remaining.

Doing that will conclusively demonstrate that these opponents are not sufficiently challenging to illustrate the differences that both of you claim between the archer and the melee character. Then you can kick up the challenges a notch or three (to level 15 NPC's, or CR 15 monsters, or whatever), or you can propose your own challenges, or whatever.

In the mean time, you're wasting everybody's time by nitpicking around. You say it's easy to build a character who performs well against these NPC's. Do it then.