D&D 3E/3.5 3.5- Multiple shots with a bow?

[Theo R Cwithin]

Let's assume nobody wants to fight him, he has cooties.

That's way better than good AC!
What sourcebook can I find this "Cooties" feat in?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That's way better than good AC!
What sourcebook can I find this "Cooties" feat in?

Fade Into Violence feat from PH 2?

Or, you could always

"be a cleric"

And cast a re-flavored Sanctuary spell..

 

[Vegepygmy]

You've touched on another gripe of mine with ranged combat in D&D: you have to really, really specialise to be any good at it (or "be a cleric") and there's only a handful of builds that actually work through a range of levels.

Uh, no. To be good at ranged combat in D&D, you just have to stay at range. You may notice that historically, archers decimated infantry from a distance, and got slaughtered in hand-to-hand combat.

The problem is that D&D players put archers 30 feet away from axe-wielding barbarians and expect them to do well (without being really, really specialized or whatever). That's like making a "fire sorcerer" and then sticking him in lots of underwater encounters.

Whereas all you need to do heinous damage in melee is a decent BAB, a high Strength and a two-handed weapon (or "be a cleric").

All you need to do "heinous damage" at range is a decent BAB, a high Dexterity, and a ranged (preferably projectile) weapon. The point is, you have to be at range. Melee combatants do no damage at range.

Speaking as someone who has spent many years as a longbow archer, the weakness of archery in D&D (in all its forms) makes me sad...

Speaking as a hobbyist archer myself, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Oh, and to answer the OP: your DM is wrong.

 

[HoboGod]

Oh yes, we all think his DM is wrong, back to the thread hijack!

Staying at a range is kinda hard unless you are the DM and have control of the terrain and obstacles. The max range on a composite longbow is 110 ft, the best you're gunna get without a form of specialization or another. The average player with 30 ft run speed can spend a full round action to move 90 ft, 120 ft with the run feet. The next level up, 40 ft, which a bunch of classes get, can spend a full round to move 120 feet, 160 ft with the run feat. Eliminating the gap between ranged and melee happens in an instant. I understand why there should be a disadvantage to archers at close range, but mechanically there's not a way to really trip up a persuing opponent, nor is there any penalty to movement while being bambarded with projectiles. Most of the great ways to use a bow to kill a swordsman don't work in DnD without some major "cheese," as it was put.

 

[aboyd]

The max range on a composite longbow is 110 ft, the best you're gunna get without a form of specialization or another.

I'm confused. Isn't 110' just the first range increment? And can't you have 5 range increments? So isn't 550' the more likely range limitation? Maybe I don't understand a nuance or something.

 

[Dandu]

4 range increments iirc.

 

[Dandu]

The problem is that D&D players put archers 30 feet away from axe-wielding barbarians and expect them to do well (without being really, really specialized or whatever). That's like making a "fire sorcerer" and then sticking him in lots of underwater encounters.

Actually...

Fire

Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Uh, no. To be good at ranged combat in D&D, you just have to stay at range. You may notice that historically, archers decimated infantry from a distance, and got slaughtered in hand-to-hand combat.

The problem is that D&D players put archers 30 feet away from axe-wielding barbarians and expect them to do well (without being really, really specialized or whatever). That's like making a "fire sorcerer" and then sticking him in lots of underwater encounters.

All you need to do "heinous damage" at range is a decent BAB, a high Dexterity, and a ranged (preferably projectile) weapon. The point is, you have to be at range. Melee combatants do no damage at range.

Fighting at long range is part of it, and unfortunately, in "Dungeons" and Dragons, far too often players have to go into cramped quarters where you really can't exploit the bow's range.

But I think you completely missed the true major difference between real life and D&D when it comes to mid and high level archery: hit point totals. And the whole concept of hit points, where you fight just as well at 1 hp as you did at 150. In real life, no matter how tough someone is, a few arrow wounds and they're going to be severely weakened if not outright dead. In D&D, even if a level 15 archer peppers a level 15 Fighter from 500 ft away, the Fighter will almost certainly survive long enough to reach melee, and possibly still win the fight. From a more typical 20-60 ft that IME most combats start out at? The archer's just screwed.

I won't even start on how with splatbooks, everyone and their Lion Totem Barbarian dipping grandmas have Pounce if they want it, which when combined with relatively cheaply available flying magic makes archery absofreaking-lutely pointless, even if your sole goal was to full attack every round, no matter how feeble the attacks were.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The problem is that D&D players put archers 30 feet away from axe-wielding barbarians and expect them to do well (without being really, really specialized or whatever). That's like making a "fire sorcerer" and then sticking him in lots of underwater encounters.

Actually...

Fire

Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level)...

Okay, so maybe you don't have to be "really, really specialized or whatever" to consistently succeed on a DC 20 + spell level Spellcraft check (at least, by a certain level). You still get my point.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm confused. Isn't 110' just the first range increment? And can't you have 5 range increments? So isn't 550' the more likely range limitation? Maybe I don't understand a nuance or something.

Actually, it's ten times the range increment for missile weapons and five times the range increment for thrown weapons.

Being able to attack at such long ranges is rarely relevant. There's a theoretical maximum encounter distance at the start of combat in D&D of 6d6*40ft = 1440ft in open plains. Generally, though the distance will be much shorter.

I've had a few combats that were decided before the monsters managed to get into melee range. But this was more because of the generous application of fireballs than missile weapons.