D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[green slime]

Its all down to GMW, I tell you. Reduce the ability to enhance 50 ammunition, and it all goes away. Archery remains a lethal option, but as the price of large numbers of enhanced arrows make their use less prevalent, order is restored. Which is why I let GMW affect 1 arrow only... You want more, you buy them.

 

[Geoff Watson]

It's not just the bows and arrows (with GMW) stacking, its lots of little things adding up.

Rapid Shot is a lot better than Two Weapon Fighting.
Bracers of Archery are really good, and there's no melee equivalent.
Lots of really strong prestige classes.
Archery is safer, as you can do it from further away.
No need to waste time closing, you can do a full attack in the first round.


Geoff.

 

[Numion]

Andy Collins said they'd be making some changes so Archers won't be superior to melee combatants in 3.5. What do you think those changes would be? I suspect it'd be stopping ammunition bonuses from stacking with weapon bonuses. (eg: +2 arrow from a +2 bow will only have a +2 bonus.) A good thing, in my opinion. What do y'all think?

This has been my house rule for a while now. Archery madness was just getting too much to handle.

 

[Lazybones]

Neverwinter Nights already uses the system where bows add "to hit" bonuses and arrows add damage, and I've seen plenty of lethal archer builds in that game.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think stacking will stay.

1. Greater Magic Weapon is being lowered to 1/4 levels. That's a big chunk right there.
2. Rapid Shot will probably be lowered to -3 penalty instead of -2.
3. The Damage Reduction changes will go a long way towards actually requiring special ammo.

I think 1. was Andy's minor change and 3. was Andy's major change.

 

[Dave G]

Why, exactly is rapid shot superior to TWF? Both require 2 feats to use, both suffer a -2 to all attacks (if you have the TWF and Ambi feats) TWF gets 1.5 Str bonus to damage on 2 successful hits, while archery doesn't get any bonus to damage.

and for those who say: "but what about the mighty X?" If the campaign is run properly they should be nigh on as rare as a magical bow!

I don't know about GMW as it hasn't come up in the campaign I'm playing, but if that spell simply didn't exist what would the problem be?

I am not accusing people of power-gaming, but playing an archer can be equivalent to a TWF combatant if you simply don't abuse the system.

Maybe the problem is not with the rules, but with the players?

 

[Dave G]

Re: I think stacking will stay.

2. Rapid Shot will probably be lowered to -3 penalty instead of -2.

If this is the case, then Flurry of Blows, needs to have an equivalent change, and the penalties for TWF with 2 feats needs it as well. I think it's equivalent.

 

[WizarDru]

Here we go, again.

Shields up, Mr. Sulu.

 

[Dave G]

Here we go, again.

Shields up, Mr. Sulu.

I'm sorry, if this debate's been had before, I hadn't seen it. I am playing an archer now, and I just don't see me being superior to our double-sword wielder in combat... :shrug:

 

[WizarDru]

I'm sorry, if this debate's been had before, I hadn't seen it. I am playing an archer now, and I just don't see me being superior to our double-sword wielder in combat... :shrug:

Let me ask you this: what level are you and the TWF swordsman? I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw.

A quick search on the rules forum will get you some interesting, sometimes heated, and lengthy debates on the topic. I would expect this may move there shortly, if it degenerates into a discussion of the merits and dangers of archers, as opposed to the merit and type of changes coming. While not as hotly argued as say, The Ranger, it holds a pride of place as one of the more consistently heated topics hereabouts.