D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[GamerGeek]

an archer optimized to archering is never going to make as many damage as a melee optimized for meleeing.

Have you ever seen an "archer optimized to archering" in action? Our group has one. We are around 10th level. He is disgusting. A minmaxed archer is flat out ridiculous. Melee doesnt hold a candle to the damage output. Especially with the ridiculous PrCs out for archers now (peerless, deepwood).

 

[Keia]

I know I probably shouldn't jump into this discussion, but I haven't seen this brought up in the 'Archers are too powerful' debate.

Does anyone use cover against the archers. I can't remember the last time a melee fighter had a penalty to hit because of cover in combat, but the archer has to deal with it on a consistent basis.

Unless, of course the dm forgets about the cover issue in melee and elsewhere.

Keia

 

[Cloudgatherer]

If GMW gets nerfed, then Arcane Archers should be nerfed as well.

IME, a good archer will not run out of magic arrows. Currently playing with an Arcane Archer in my game who might run out of *arrows* from simply firing too many of them, but never magic arrows.

As far as damage is concerned, archers do more in my experience. Fighter types must move to their target, then swing, and possibly retreat if the going gets rough. Not so for archers. Even if moving were not the case, fighter types will still have a run for their money when it comes to dealing out death. While archers don't get as much Strength on their attacks (if any), they get double benefits from +X bows and arrows as well as a (typically) higher crit multiplier.

 

[GamerGeek]

Re: Why I think Rapid Shot will be changed

2. Look at the revised Many Shot (repost from one of the 3.5 Spotlights):


-4 is specifically worse than the -2 version in the ELH. And would suggest a trend that Rapid Shot would be lowered.

The thing to remember about Many Shot is that it is a standard action. This means it does not require a full-attack action, which is why you have the higher penalty on the attack roll.

Surprise round: shoot four arrows.

Move more than five feet: shoot four arrows.

Im not trying to say they arent gonna nerf Rapid Shot. I have no idea. I just want to point out why Many Shot is different and has different rules.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The most logical thing for them to do is give bows a bonus to hit and arrows a bonus to damage.

I wholehartedly disagree. So the archers are stronger now. But is that a reason for making them much weaker in 3.5e? Cause that would be the case:
Now they can use twice the magic to get twice the bonus (be that 2 GMW spells - or more, for 50 arrows will hardly be enough, and the duration might not be enough - or an expensive magical weapon and even more expensive magical ammunition.), but with your change, they HAVE to use twice the magic to get THE SAME bonus as the melee fighters.

And it isn't logical, either: a magical bow adds to the power of the shot, and that means more damage (and, in the logic of D&D, a better attack bonus, for you can pierce armor easier. Plus the arrows fly faster, making it harder to doge).

Yes, well, about those Archer PrC... They aren't available IMC. So that sort of nerfs those ideas.

So archers have no PrC's, but melee fighters do? They can take one that gives them even more in the field they are already good in (better attacks, more AC, more damage), but archers don't? Again, the wrong way to deal with the situation, for PrC's mean power, and so melee characters will start to seriously outshine archers. (Unless, you do away with those melee PrC's - and, if you're at it, with the caster PrC's!)

Then looking at Rapid Shot, I still aren't convinced that it is all that bad. I remember reading SKR's analysis, I wasn't too impressed, it didn't tell the whole story. And now I can't find it on his site...

About Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting (using what we know of 3.5):

To get an additional ranged attack, the archer has to take two feats (unless they put together point blank shot and rapid shot, which I doubt, since they don't belong together), two-weapon fighting only takes one feat. Also, you can get more than 4 attacks with two-weapon fighting, for there's improved and greater two-weapon fighting, while there is no improved rapid shot, and no greater rapid shot.

1) Eliminate bow and ammunition enhancement bonus stacking.
This would effectively mean: Simply take the greater enchancement of the two: A +1 bow firing +2 arrows gets a +2 to attack and damage. A +2 bow firing +1 arrows gets a +2 to attack and damage (but for purposes of DR, is only a +1 weapon)

All other bonuses still stack. Thus, if you have a +1 Flaming bow, and you have +2 keen amunition, you get a +2 enchancement bonus to the attack and to damage, you get the flaming, and you get the keen, and your attack is +2 for DR purposes.

Obviously, similar bonuses still do not stack, such as if you had a +1 flaming burst bow, and were firing +1 flaming ammunition. Your shots would count as +1 flaming burst, not +1 flaming flaming burst.

I agree with that. This way, the advantage of getting twice the enhancement bonus is taken from the archers, and the advantage of not being forced to get magical ammunition to overcome DR is taken from the melee-fighters.

I've actually thought of that, too.

Maybe the bow could even bestow all enchantments to the ammunition (so you could have a keen bow), or that would be an extra enhancement.

2) Significantly reduce the price for magical ammunition. With all the new types of DR, archers will most likely need more types of ammunition for different situations. Make ammunition the same price as armor and shields in terms of cost for enhancement bonus.

Our new system would render magical arrows obsolete!

What we still needed would be:
- Arrows made of a special material (e.g. arrows with an adamantine point)
- Special enchantments for arrows: keen arrows, slaying arrows, and a couple of other special arrows. They wouldn't need that +1 enhancement first, but could be as expensive as before (you still pay +2000 gm for 50 keen arrows, and since keen edge won't affect more than one arrow, you'd end up paying big money for those arrows)


3) Either reduce the number of arrows affected by GMW, or decrease the duration of the spell. [/B][/QUOTE]

Nope. GMW would not be needed for arrows anymore.

GMW has already been toned down, as it's +1/4 caster levels now.

The big point some people make with the +1 flaming burst acid burst bow, which becomes +5 fb ab with GMW isn't the problem of archery alone, as you can make the same with a melee weapon (and as long as you're friends with your party caster(s), noone's gonna be discriminated).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Archer's disadvantages

Just to summarize the disadvantages archers have:

• They need special equipment (or thrown weapons) to get any STR bonus to their attacks.
• Even then, they can't apply then +4 of their STR bonus to attacks.
• They provoke A'soO with their attack mode - and there's no defensive shooting
• They can only get one additional attack with feats.
• They only get 1x STR bonus, even though they usually have to use two hands

Melee fighters, on the other hand, have the choice

• Use a two-handed weapon and get 1.5 times their full STR bonus
• Use two weapons and get up to 3 additional attacks
• Use a shield, and get TWICE the enhancement bonus to AC (with greater vestment) and being able to heap enchantments to both armor and shield

 

[jmucchiello]

[pokes head up]

The flaw with rapid shot is that the prerequisite feat Point Blank Shot gives you a +1 on ranged attacks. So the net penalty with Rapid Shot is only -1/-1. This is why some people feel Rapid Shot should be -3/-3.

[ducks and scurries away]

 

[Numion]

I know I probably shouldn't jump into this discussion, but I haven't seen this brought up in the 'Archers are too powerful' debate.

Does anyone use cover against the archers. I can't remember the last time a melee fighter had a penalty to hit because of cover in combat, but the archer has to deal with it on a consistent basis.

Unless, of course the dm forgets about the cover issue in melee and elsewhere.

Keia

From what I've seen the cover issue isn't thta important. Mainly for two reasons:

1) Archery attack bonuses are higher than melee ab's. Due to stacking arrows and bows and feats like point blank shot and bracers of archy.

2) It's easy for archers to choose targets; it's unusual for all enemies to get cover bonus from all archers.

When I play archer most of the time enemies cover bonuses to AC are due to my own partymates charging between me and enemies. But they're learning

 

[Numion]

Re: Archer's disadvantages

Melee fighters, on the other hand, have the choice

• Use a shield, and get TWICE the enhancement bonus to AC (with greater vestment) and being able to heap enchantments to both armor and shield

Of course, both archers and meleers can use animated shields and these issues go away. Of course I never met a DM who would allow that crap in a game.

 

[Caliber]

Re: Re: Archer's disadvantages

Of course, both archers and meleers can use animated shields and these issues go away. Of course I never met a DM who would allow that crap in a game.

You don't allow Animated Shields?

But anyway, my real reason for posting is why so many people have suggested that the bonuses from the "launcher" (be it bow, sling, or crossbow) and the "ammo" (be it arrow or stone) be seperated?

That seems pretty illogical to me. I guess it really comes down to what you envision the +3 on the arrow to mean though.

I think the changes he meant was GMW being changed to +1/4 and possibly the elimination of its 50 ammo enhancement capability (the second part is just speculation)

Note that the annexation of the Ambidexterity feat by Two-Weapon Fighting will help tilt the scale a little towards the meelers, as will the DR changes (no spells to change a weapons material, remember? Adamantine arrows are expensive, as are the other materials most likely)

I've had archers in my campaign (and in the DragonStar game I play in, nearly every character is an "archer" type (well they use guns but its the same thing))

In neither case has it really been unbalancing. DR is a major problem unless you can talk your buddy Wizard or Cleric into GMWing your arrows, and even then, unless he GMWs quite a few you are going to run out rather quickly. 50 arrows can disappear in a few rounds when an archer is making 3+ attacks per round.