Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mike Sullivan" data-source="post: 841777" data-attributes="member: 9824">Nope, nor does it attempt to weigh the rounds where the archer does have to move, and only gets one shot.  It's a "full attack round versus full attack round" comparison.In my experience, having done a lot of systematic analyses for D&D and other systems, and having seen a bunch of them done, attempting to simulate the flow of an RPG combat is an exercise in false accuracy.  You don't get real results, you get whatever results the simulator built into the system.  That's why I try to keep mine both simple and fairly comprehensive (hence, the range of opponents, and a few variations on the archer's situation), and not say, "This one (with the archer within 30 feet but without bracers of archery, for example) is the authoritative way to measure the archer's power."My analysis does not attempt to answer the question, "Which is more powerful, the archer or the greatsword fighter."  Rather, it attempts to give some data points on which to base your opinion (which must by necessity include your intuitive weighting of factors not easily simulated) on the issue.My own opinion on the issue is that the archer benefits from having more possibilities to stack items on.  That is, if you're just going to have a +3 greatsword and a +3 longbow, then the greatsword fighter is superior.  But the greatsword fighter has relatively few ways to buff himself up:  He can get strength increases, or he can get a more magical sword.  The archer, on the other hand, has far more opportunity to buff himself: he's can get a stat buff (which, admittedly, doesn't help him as much), he can get a more magical longbow.  In addition, he can get more magical arrows, and he can get bracers of archery, and he could buff his secondary stat (Strength, assuming he has a mighty bow available), and all of that stuff interacts wonderfully with his additional attack per round courtesy of Rapid Shot.Is it "fair" to compare an archer with many more magical items and spells all of which increase his damage output to a swordsman who doesn't?  Perhaps not.  But the fact of the matter is that that's how D&D3 works -- it's generally easier to layer several different effects (the GMW and the Cat's Grace and the Bull's Strength and the party mage making a Bracers of Archery) than it is to push one item or effect up to ridiculous levels (enhanced, maximized Bull's Strength, or a +4 or +5 Greatsword, for example).  I don't know if that's fair, but that seems to me to be how it is.</blockquote>

Verification