D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[LokiDR]

So it seems like the general concensus is that ranged combat is "better" than melee. Do you think melee should be better? Or do you think they should be equal?

I think it makes sense that Ranged combat is a better form of fighting. Perhaps it does need to be toned down a bit (I can see where the pluses for stacking launcher and projectiles can get a bit out of wack), but I think Ranged Combat should be superior. The whole point is to do damage while staying away from your opponent so they can not do damage to you. Perhaps it should be harder to become a good archer than a good meleer, but you should do more damage as an archer than a meleer. There would be a trade off then.

I do think Archery needs to be toned down a bit, but definately not made weaker than a meleer.

Wow, I am having a rules debate in the general forum, and a general debate here. Now I am getting confused. Oh well.

I want the bold Knight charging into battle to be something worth playing other than by those who like dying. Archers do just as much damage, if not more, and from a much safer place. King Arthor was a meat shield for his archers?!? That is what D&D tends to come down to, IME. That is what I want to stop. I never see the melee types get a chance to shine.

 

[bertman4]

According to the rules, I believe the 50% break rule applies for magic arrows that miss as well.

Some friends and I had this same discussion. The 50% break rule should apply, but on top of that, your magical arrows should become non-magical. Pg 113 of PHB states that masterwork arrows "is damaged (effectively destroyed) when it is used." We took this to mean that used=fired, not used=hit. We also decided that damaged=non-masterwork and not damaged=broken. And since all magical arrows must be masterwork arrows before enchantment, becoming non-masterwork means becoming non-magical.

Bertman

 

[RigaMortus]

Wow, I am having a rules debate in the general forum, and a general debate here. Now I am getting confused. Oh well.

I want the bold Knight charging into battle to be something worth playing other than by those who like dying. Archers do just as much damage, if not more, and from a much safer place. King Arthor was a meat shield for his archers?!? That is what D&D tends to come down to, IME. That is what I want to stop. I never see the melee types get a chance to shine.

I have seen MANY more melee types in the different campaigns I've played in over the years than I have seen Archers. Look at Clerics. People say Clerics are argueably the most powerful class in the game, so why doesn't EVERYONE play a Cleric ALL the time? It would seem like a no brainer. The reason is, because it's BORING to play the same class or even same type of class (Druid would be the same "type of class" as a Cleric) all the time.

Same thing with the Archer. Ok, so they do more damage than a guy with a Greatsword. But how many parties have all their "tanks" centered around Archery? Not any that I have played in. There is only so many ways to build an Archer, after awhile it would get boring.

So I don't think that is going to be the case. It hasn't been the case so far, and I don't think it will be in the future.

I think circumstance determines when a character "shines" or not. In a small, cramped dungeon, the melee person will shine more than an Archer, as they won't have room to hit and run. A Wizard shines in open areas with fireball. Clerics shine against Undead. I think it has more to do with circumstances and situations than it does with how you build your character. You can't build a character that will shine in all situations all the time, otherwise there would only be one class.

That is another problem with all these analysis of this class vs. that class. They are either swayed in favor of the class you want to show as "better" or they are showed as being equal, without showing instances where class X would be worse and class X would be better.

 

[shurai]

It still is not proven to me that archery is capable of more damage than melee. Could someone give me an example of an archery character (using the core rules, if you please . . . all that other stuff is at-own-risk as far as I'm concerned) that can truly best a melee character in terms of damage potential?

Because it looks to me like they have a few disadvantages stacked against them:

1. lower base damage from the weapon itself
2. difficulties regarding sundering/threatened area etc.
3. less-efficient ability score needs

Conversely, there seems to be only one advantage: bows/ammo enhancement stacking & Greater Magic Weapon.

I'm willing to be wrong on this, so please inform me.

-S

 

[Mike Sullivan]

It still is not proven to me that archery is capable of more damage than melee. Could someone give me an example of an archery character (using the core rules, if you please . . . all that other stuff is at-own-risk as far as I'm concerned) that can truly best a melee character in terms of damage potential?

Because it looks to me like they have a few disadvantages stacked against them:

1. lower base damage from the weapon itself
2. difficulties regarding sundering/threatened area etc.
3. less-efficient ability score needs

Conversely, there seems to be only one advantage: bows/ammo enhancement stacking & Greater Magic Weapon.

I'm willing to be wrong on this, so please inform me.

Sure, I'll run the numbers. Give me an idea of what level you're interested in, and what AC opponents. I'll presume you want to compare to a Greatsword-wielder, since that's the premier way to dish out damage in melee as a pure-fighter.

 

[shurai]

Sure, I'll run the numbers. Give me an idea of what level you're interested in, and what AC opponents. I'll presume you want to compare to a Greatsword-wielder, since that's the premier way to dish out damage in melee as a pure-fighter.

Really any level is fine with me, but for simplicity's sake keeping it under maybe 10th or so would make things easier for all of us.

Thanks again.

-S

 

[shurai]

Has anybody considered that allowing an extra 3rd level spell in the talk about character comparison is a little unfair? I'm speaking of Greater Magic Weapon, of course. It seems to me that if we're going to allow the hypothetical archer in our discussions have an extra enhancement spell cast by the friendly wizard, I would think that the swordsman deserves similar consideration. What about allowing him an extra GMW of his own, or perhaps a free Haste or Displacement?

I feel that would even things up a bit.

-S

 

[Cloudgatherer]

The stacking problem really starts to occur at levels 10+, since this is when magic items get into the +3 or more bonus. Stacking a +1 bow with a +1 arrow isn't a big deal, but if we have a +4 bow and +4 arrows when the fighter just has a +4 greatsword...

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Really any level is fine with me, but for simplicity's sake keeping it under maybe 10th or so would make things easier for all of us.

Thanks again.

Let's do 9th, then. That's a break-point for GMW, so it might be inappropriate, but what the hell.

Bob the Bowman: Str 10, Dex 20 (after two stat increases), Con 12. Point Blank Shot, WF - Longbow, Rapid Shot, WS - Longbow, Improved Critical - Longbow, some other stuff.

Gary the Greatsword-wielder: Str 20 (after two stat increases), Dex 10, Con 12. WF - Greatsword, WS - Greatsword, Improved Critical - Greatsword, some other stuff.

Let's go ahead and give them both flat +3 weapons (composite long bow and greatsword, respectively) -- if they don't have at least that high, they get 'em through GMW. Bob the Bowman also has +3 arrows, courtesy of GMW.

We'll give 'em both stat +2 (Dex and Str, respectively) items, as well.

They're both Fighter 9's, so their BAB's are +9/+4.

Bob's modified attack bonus is (+3 from bow, +3 from arrows, +6 from Dex, +1 from WF): +22/+17, or +20/+20/+15 with Rapid Shot.

Gary's modified attack bonus is (+3 from sword, +6 from Strength, +1 from WF): +19/+14.

Bob's modified damage (we'll assume he's firing from more than 30 feet away) is: 1d8 + 6 (from bow and arrows), 19-20/x3. That averages to 12.6 damage per hit (including critical hits).

Gary's modified damage is: 2d6 + 14, 17-20/x2. That averages to 25.2 damage per hit (including crits).

Let's look at their average damage per round:

Against an opponent with a 20 AC:

• 
  Bob, firing 3 shots: 95% chance to hit, 95% chance to hit, 80% chance to hit = .95 * 12.6 + .95 * 12.6 + .8 * 12.6 = 34.02 damage per round.
  
  Gary, attacking twice: 95% chance to hit, 75% chance to hit = .95 * 25.2 + .75 * 25.2 = 42.84 damage per round.

Against an opponent with a 25 AC:

• 
  Bob, firing 3 shots: 80% chance to hit, 80% chance to hit, 55% chance to hit = .8 * 12.6 + .8 * 12.6 + .55 * 12.6 = 27.09 damage per round.
  
  Gary, attacking twice: 75% chance to hit, 50% chance to hit = .75 * 25.2 + .5 * 25.2 = 31.5 damage per round.

Against an opponent with a 30 AC:

• 
  Bob, firing 3 shots: 55% chance to hit, 55% chance to hit, 30% chance to hit = .55 * 12.6 + .55 * 12.6 + .3 * 12.6 = 17.64 damage per round.
  
  Gary, attacking twice: 50% chance to hit, 25% chance to hit = .5 * 25.2 + .25 * 25.2 = 18.9 damage per round.

Against an opponent with a 35 AC:

• 
  Bob, firing 3 shots: 30% chance to hit, 30% chance to hit, 5% chance to hit = .3 * 12.6 + .3 * 12.6 + .05 * 11.55 = 8.1375 damage per round.
  
  Gary, attacking twice: 25% chance to hit, 5% chance to hit = .25 * 25.2 + .05 * 22.05 = 7.4025 damage per round.

(Note that in that last case, average damage per hit from secondary attacks drops due to decreasing chance of critical hits.)

Okay, so, as the trend clearly indicates, Bob gets better the higher the AC of the opponent (due to his higher attack rating and larger number of attacks per round, but lower average damage output).

Now, let's examine a couple of variants on the scenario:

What if Bob is within 30 feet? Point blank shot and Weapon Specialization kick in, and he fires at +21/+21/+16 or +23/+18, and does 1d8 + 9 damage (averages to 16.2 damage).

AC 25 Opponent:

• 
  Bob firing thrice: 85% chance to hit, 85% chance to hit, 60% chance to hit = .85 * 16.2 + .85 * 16.2 + .6 * 16.2 = 37.26 damage per round.
  
  (Gary's still at 31.5 damage per round).

AC 30 Opponent:

• 
  Bob firing thrice: 60% chance to hit, 60% chance to hit, 35% chance to hit = .6 * 16.2 + .6 * 16.2 + .35 * 16.2 = 25.11 damage per round.
  
  (Gary's still at 18.9 damage per round.)

What if Bob's not within 30 feet, but has Bracers of Archery? (This does raise the question of how he's getting his Dex enhancement, but we'll ignore that for now):

Bob attacks at +22/+22/+17, but for only 12.6 damage.

AC 25 Opponent:

• 
  Bob firing thrice: 90% chance to hit, 90% chance to hit, 65% chance to hit = .9 * 12.6 + .9 * 12.6 + .65 * 12.6 = 30.87 damage per round.
  
  (Gary's still at 31.5 damage per round).

AC 30 Opponent:

• 
  Bob firing thrice: 65% chance to hit, 65% chance to hit, 40% chance to hit = .65 * 12.6 + .65 * 12.6 + .4 * 12.6 = 21.42 damage per round.
  
  (Gary's still at 18.9 damage per round.)

Some comments about trends both ways: level 9 is a good level for Bob, the first time his GMW gets him +3 arrows instead of +2 arrows. Level 11 is a good level for Gary, since he narrows the attacks-per-round gap from 2 versus 3 to 3 versus 4 (though the third iterative attack for both Bob and Gary is at such a penalty to hit that it doesn't hugely strongly affect their damage outputs). Level 12 is good for Bob, as his GMW'd arrows go up to +4.

As is, I hope, totally obvious, Bob totally wrecks Gary if he both has Bracers of Archery and is within 30 feet.

Gary gets more voodoo out of stat increasers, since he gets the bonus both to attack and *1.5 the bonus towards damage. That's both large and in charge, and I'm not talking about the feat. It might be unfair to look at them with only a piddly +2 to their stats, since a buffing Sorcerer or Wizard at this level could often give +4 or more with Bull's Strength.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions for you -- you said you wanted data, and that's what I got. I don't know if you'll interpret this data to mean that archery is/isn't overpowered.

 

[Endur]

Even ignoring magic completely, the archer is still better.

Point Blank Shot is like a free Weapon Focus feat. And Half of a Weapon Specialization feat.

Rapid Shot is awesome (an extra attack for only -2 to hit).

Even comparing just a masterwork mighty composite bow vs. a masterwork greatsword, the archer will do better than the swordsman.

Because of the archer's greater number of attacks, he will benefit more from magical buffs. Plus there are all the stacking issues and bracers of archery.

Tom

It still is not proven to me that archery is capable of more damage than melee. Could someone give me an example of an archery character (using the core rules, if you please . . . all that other stuff is at-own-risk as far as I'm concerned) that can truly best a melee character in terms of damage potential?

Because it looks to me like they have a few disadvantages stacked against them:

1. lower base damage from the weapon itself
2. difficulties regarding sundering/threatened area etc.
3. less-efficient ability score needs

Conversely, there seems to be only one advantage: bows/ammo enhancement stacking & Greater Magic Weapon.

I'm willing to be wrong on this, so please inform me.

-S