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

[the Jester]

I have to say, I don't think archery is underpowered at all in 3e, either 3.5 or (especially!) 3.0.

I ran and played 3e from before it came out to just after 4e came out, and the archer was badass from day 1 on to the end. Depending on the match up, sometimes she was better off than the melee guys, sometimes worse off. But you know, the archer doesn't have to stay 300' from the combat to be effective- she just needs to stay out of melee. If the melee warriors in the group can tie up the bad guys while she stays back and fires arrows, the archer will kick serious ass. If she does a little less damage, that's okay; often she isn't taking any damage at all. Now, in many combats she's going to be pressed, especially if she doesn't have a good fighter/paladin/whatever to run interference, but overall- archery, ime, is fine.

Then again, I run a game where not all the fights start 40' apart, and where the pcs can sometimes set themselves up for advantageous positions and whatnot. If the pcs pick some of the fights, and they get to pick the fight's location, the archer can climb a tree/hide behind a building two blocks away/whatever and may basically be free damage at minimal risk.

 

[IronWolf]

I have to say, I don't think archery is underpowered at all in 3e, either 3.5 or (especially!) 3.0.

... Now, in many combats she's going to be pressed, especially if she doesn't have a good fighter/paladin/whatever to run interference, but overall- archery, ime, is fine.

This has been my experience as well. We've had a couple of pretty successful archers in our current group over the course of several campaigns. So in actual play at our table the archer does not seem to have a significant disadvantage.

I will say our group is not really composed of a lot of character optimizers so possibly it is because none of our characters are really tweaked to their max power level that we don't see a lot of problems with the archer.

 

[HoboGod]

The "archers don't get hurt" argument doesn't work, wizards are- in effect- ranged combatants, too. Generally speaking, the same tactical advantages the archers use can be used by wizards as well. And quite frankly, if archers trade damage for the ability to stay out of combat, what do they contribute to the battle?

 

[coyote6]

It hasn't been my experience that dedicated archers are terribly underpowered compared to melee fighters.

What besides Power Attack can a melee combatant do to up their damage that an archer can't do?

Seeing the 3.0->3.5 complaints, I'd like to say that I have always thought that the double PA damage for two-handed weapons thing in 3.5e was kind of overpowered. I think we changed it to x1.5 damage.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There are many spells and feats that add to melee damage but can't be used with ranged attacks. I'm not going to bother searching for a large list of them just to prove that archery damage doesn't keep up with melee.

The 1.5x str bonus and the single ability score for attack and damage alone help a bunch to give melee the edge, though.

 

[HoboGod]

What else besides Power Attack? How about feats that involve AoO? A reach weapon with Combat Reflexes, Deft Opportunist, and Hold the Line can be pretty devastating. Or how about Improved Trip? Horror stories exist about what a spiked chain can do with that feat. That's just off the top of my head, I'm not even getting into the aspects of charge, pounce, and Bo9S.

 

[IronWolf]

The "archers don't get hurt" argument doesn't work, wizards are- in effect- ranged combatants, too. Generally speaking, the same tactical advantages the archers use can be used by wizards as well. And quite frankly, if archers trade damage for the ability to stay out of combat, what do they contribute to the battle?

So we should all play wizards then? I think if when a person generates a character they look purely at the damage potential of the class and build then there are going to be a certain handful of classes or builds that stand out.

But there is more to it than just who is going to do the most damage in the battle. If the archer is of the ranger variety then they can contribute in many ways outside of battle. Tracking enemies, spotting threats, moving stealthily through certain areas, climbing to difficult to reach places to make something easier for the rest of the party, etc.

It hasn't been my experience that dedicated archers are terribly underpowered compared to melee fighters.

I think this is the thing being overlooked. I don't think anyone is saying at the moment that the archer stands on even level with a traditional melee fighter, just that simply by choosing an archer type you have not instantly gimped your character.

So mechanically the folks saying the melee fighter deals out more damage in battle are quite likely correct (I haven't done the math or searched the forums to find someone who has). But I don't think the amount of damage is so drastically off to make playing an archer a poor decision.

 

[HoboGod]

Oh, I agree 110% on what a valuable hunter in the form of a ranger or scout can bring to the table. 9 times out of 10, it's not because the wizard casts fireball that my players effortlessly thwart one of my encounters, it's because the ranger was resourceful enough to spot danger and had enough ranks in knowledge (nature) to gain some advantage. But when I don't want to be a hunter, but rather that prodigy bowman who hits the charging knight in the left eye socket of a metal face mask, there in lies my sad face.

 

[Cactot]

Sure you can make archers tear it up, you just need a specific setup:
Buy (~72,000 gold) or create a Splitting Energy Bow, and then focus on strength. (A whirling frenzy or ferocity variant barbarian works VERY well for this.)

For each attack you have you do:
4d6+2xstr+4

With improved rapid shot and the whirling frenzy variant you have 3 attacks at your bab-2, then whatever iterative attacks you have (each at -2)

If you were to start with 18 in str and dex(16 in both + wild elf for example) at level 12 with only that item you would have:
3 attacks at +16
1 attack at +11
1 attack at +6
Damage for each attack would be (given 2 level up points towards strength and having activated frenzy)
4d6+20 (average 34)
Your first three attacks should have roughly a 50% chance to land against equal level foes, with your fourth attack having 25% chance, and your fifth 5%
That should leave you with an average damage in the mid 60's, this could be boosted greatly with stat boosting items and weapon specialization, haste, etc.

The ferocity barb would have much better to hit (+25% per attack) but one fewer attack, they should come out about even in average situations, with the whirling barb coming out ahead against low ac foes, and the frenzy one coming out ahead against high ac ones.

I would like to stat this out more and really see what it can do, but i do not have the time right now. First thing i was thinking is getting 2 size increases somehow (would change each attack from 4d6 to 8d6 =D)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Whirling Frenzy's extra attack and Rapid Shot would be a -4 to hit, unless you grab Improved Rapid Shot.

And I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that Hank's Energy Bow wouldn't benefit from size increases, since it launches specifically created force missiles with a set damage (different than a typical arrow's damage).

If it does benefit (or if it doesn't, but your DM doesn't allow that crazy awesome bow anyway), a pair of Strongarm Bracers from MIC is a great boon to a martial archer once you can afford them. Use a bow one size bigger and at no penalty. Combine with Enlarge Person (the -2 to hit being admittedly rather painful) and even a standard longbow's dishing out 3d6 per shot.

Of course, if you can find a good blunt arrow to do bludgeoning damage, there's always Greater Mighty Wallop cheese...