D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E Deepwood Sniper??

[dagger]

YOu can also look at the exotic great bow in Complete Warrior, and then you qualify for Exotic Weapon Master, which also gets Close Combat Shot at first level.

 

[Felix]

I forgot to change the text when I was copying the "quote".

No worries.

Um, have you ever actually run an archer in 3/3.5?

"Um"?

Yes I have, and I have also run greatsword wielding PCs. As the first, when threatened by a hulking melee guy I would move out of the way and into a position where it would be more likely that the enemy would attack someone besides me. When I move, it tends to drop the, um, rate of fire.

As the second I've disrupted volleys of arrows from hitting the wizard or cleric by running up to the line of archers; they would either draw melee weapons or move away to keep firing. Either way, they didn't just keep on plugging: they reacted to being bodily threatened in a way that made sense. Didn't help them in the end, but they tried eh?

Used to the extent that you seem to be advocating for use on archers

You don't need to use it all the time... the threat of sundering by melee guys should be enough to evoke a response from an archer. What, you think a PC or NPC should not worry about his livelyhood, his expensive bow that enhances normal arrows to kill nasty things? If his bow is even threatened, he should back off because he shouldn't want it broken. Or he should draw steel to meet the melee threat. Either way.

However D&D IS NOT REALISTIC.

That's a terrible reason to play a character without some kind of verisimilitude. Even shouted the reason doesn't improve.

So you think that hide and move silently are completely useless skills?

These skills are more useful for those characters who do not have to rely on other loud characters because that means it is less likely for the loud guys (since there are none) to draw attention to the quiet guys.

Is that an unreasonable thing to say? Don't act as if I'm taking it to the extreme by asking if they're completely useless... they're just better for some than for others. And it just so happens that often those others are NPCs.

The possibility that an ability might not get used does not make it worthless.

Quite right. It's not worthless; never said it was. It's just better for an NPC. As are many of the DWS abilities.

What other classes?

Bard.
Cleric.
Fighter.
Ranger.
Rogue.

If you can convince your DM to look outside the PHB, then Scout.

Add OotBI and you've 7. That enough?

EDIT: And Exotic Weapon Master as dagger has said. So 8.

The virtue those classes have is that their fighting styles can be used in an archery capacity very easily, but you don't risk putting all of your eggs into one easily dispatched basket. That makes for a good archer character; someone who isn't so worried about his bow breaking that he must withdraw to safer environs because he is not hamstrung when without a bow.

A DWS is very good at his ballywick, better than a Rogue archer. I'd rather the rogue because the rogue can still be of use without his bow, and that means he's more likely to stick in a fight where it looks like he might have to mix it up. The DWS is good at a long range, and as a party-mate, I'd be concerned to think that perhaps the DWS is thinking about getting a long distance twixt him and our enemies.

The NPC doesn't have that problem. So, again, the Deepwood Sniper is built to be better suited to play as an NPC than as a PC.

 

[moritheil]

First, while sunder is an option. It is not a commonly used one. Since it tends to ruin the game for the players, which tends to make things less enjoyable for the DM as they won't have any players. Used to the extent that you seem to be advocating for use on archers, NPC should also be attempting to sunder every weapon that PCs use. Since obviously it is far easier for the DM to make new NPCs than it is for the players to acquire/repair weapons. While you could argue this is metagaming on the PCs part, the same would be true of the DM. A DM who makes extensive use of sunder is probably a DM who enjoys screwing your characters.

Most DMs are content to simply try and kill you the old fashioned way and taking AoOs on you for firing your bow in a threatened area. If things were handled the way you seem to be thinking they are all the time, Archers would be completely unusable as a PC type no matter what classes you had.

1. The DM can sunder the PCs weapons if the PCs keep sundering NPC weapons. I see nothing wrong with this. Out of courtesy, I don't do it, but if I roll up an NPC with Improved Sunder, you can sure as heck bet he's going to use it.

2. The "typical DM"'s kung fu is weak. My head is still ringing from the example I heard of a couple of weeks ago, wherein a group of 8 with average level 8 took out a beholder without anything resembling a battle plan and without anyone dying. Because, you know, despite genius level intelligence and the ability to fly, it decided to chill for a few rounds right next to the raging barbarians.

3. Then most DMs would be completely screwed by rogue/scout archers with tumble. Somehow I feel that that should not be the case. Actually, I desperately hope that this is not the case, while realizing with dread that you may be right about it.

 

[Rackhir]

Yes I have, and I have also run greatsword wielding PCs. As the first, when threatened by a hulking melee guy I would move out of the way and into a position where it would be more likely that the enemy would attack someone besides me. When I move, it tends to drop the, um, rate of fire.

As the second I've disrupted volleys of arrows from hitting the wizard or cleric by running up to the line of archers; they would either draw melee weapons or move away to keep firing. Either way, they didn't just keep on plugging: they reacted to being bodily threatened in a way that made sense. Didn't help them in the end, but they tried eh?

You don't need to use it all the time... the threat of sundering by melee guys should be enough to evoke a response from an archer. What, you think a PC or NPC should not worry about his livelyhood, his expensive bow that enhances normal arrows to kill nasty things? If his bow is even threatened, he should back off because he shouldn't want it broken. Or he should draw steel to meet the melee threat. Either way.

That's a terrible reason to play a character without some kind of verisimilitude. Even shouted the reason doesn't improve.

Your view of how DMs should react to archers, depends on constantly going after the character's bow. Otherwise the archer can just do a 5' step back and keep firing. There are always ways for a DM to screw players, I just don't see why the DM should make a particular point of screwing archers vs other characters. The Rapiers and daggers are not significantly more difficult to sunder than a bow, yet I never see people going "Just break their rapier". Personally, I simply don't like sundering being used in D&D period. It seems a sour grapes way of dealing with foes for PCs or NPCs.

I was emphasizing the fact that D&D is not realistic, because you are baseing your argument on what is "realistic". Complaining that one minor change (not sundering bows at every chance) is "without some kind of verisimilitude" is silly. IRL bow were never used in close combat, not because people were afraid of having their bows destroyed. They weren't used, because unlike Legolas, people can't draw and fire quickly enough to prevent the enemy from sticking a sword in your guts which realistically kills you. Not giving you a scratch as the D&D HP system dictates.

The whole D&D combat system is fundamentally unrealistic because of this HP system. Try playing GURPS sometime. That has a pretty realistic approach to combat between people and it is extremely lethal. One or two good hits in a vital location and you're dead.

These skills are more useful for those characters who do not have to rely on other loud characters because that means it is less likely for the loud guys (since there are none) to draw attention to the quiet guys.

How is an archer more dependent on other charcters than a Rogue when operating in a scouting mode? He's better able to defend himself, deals substantially more damage and probably has considerably more HP. I don't see the logic there.

Bard.
Cleric.
Fighter.
Ranger.
Rogue.

If you can convince your DM to look outside the PHB, then Scout.

Add OotBI and you've 7. That enough?

EDIT: And Exotic Weapon Master as dagger has said. So 8.

The virtue those classes have is that their fighting styles can be used in an archery capacity very easily, but you don't risk putting all of your eggs into one easily dispatched basket. That makes for a good archer character; someone who isn't so worried about his bow breaking that he must withdraw to safer environs because he is not hamstrung when without a bow.

Actually we both forgot the Arcane Archer. However those are base classes you are listing and none of the non fighter classes really contribute anything in the way of archery specific skills. They might have abilities that are useful, but you might as well include every base class, since every class has it's useful skills and abilities.

The reason why those other classes aren't tied to a bow is because they aren't nearly as good at using a bow as a dedicated archer is. Especially when you start including Archery specific PrCs. A dedicated archer is at a minimum typically going to have Precise shot, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus and weapon Spec. Leaving aside weapon spec, that's all the feats until 9th lv for a non-human non-fighter. Even a fighter doesn't have enough feats to be good at archery and equally good at a melee feat chain. You have to specialize if you want be really effective at something in D&D and specialization is the whole point of PrCs.

Cleric Archer builds I'm can be extremely effective, but I find then aestetically offensive, because they are primarily spell casters and require a specific elven munchkin race and a specific munchkin elvish god to be fully effective.

I'm puzzled as to why you included bards though. Rogues I can see including for the sneak attack dice, but I'm not sure what the bard's going to contribute.

Any decent fighter(type) based archer is going to be at least as effective with a melee weapon as a non-archer is going to be with a bow and that is still a dammed sight better than any non fighter(type) is going to be in frontline combat. You still have fighter BAB, decent strength (For the Strength bow) and fighter HP. So even without a bow you are still going to be an effective combatant. Just because you've lost your bow or are fighting something where it's not effective, doesn't mean you have to run and hide.

 

[Felix]

Your view of how DMs should react to archers, depends on constantly going after the character's bow.

The threat of going after the bow, yes. The archer doesn't know if they're going to sunder or whack him with a sword, both or neither. Trip, perhaps? Which will bugger an archer...

Any way you look at it, the archer doesn't want to be close to the guys he's firing at, right? So when they get closer, they'll want to back off, right? Backing off means not getting in a full-round Rapid Shot action. So rate of fire decreases. I don't see the point of contention.

How is an archer more dependent on other charcters than a Rogue when operating in a scouting mode?

He isn't. I was talking about the usefulness of the skills. When these skills are used in a group of all sneaky types, their usefulness increases, because it is more likely their whole group will go unnoticed and thus they will not be forced to engage.

When the group has klunky types, as the majority of PC parties will have, the usefulness of Hide/MvSil decreases, because the whole group won't be quiet, and thus they will be less able to choose engagements of their choosing.

This was not a Rogue/Archer "who's the better scout" point of contention, rather I was pointing out that the addition of Hide/MvSil to the DWS's abilities makes it more useful as an NPC class (which is more likely to be able to apply Hide/MvSil more efficiently) rather than a PC class.

Actually we both forgot the Arcane Archer.

D'oh!

However those are base classes you are listing and none of the non fighter classes really contribute anything in the way of archery specific skills.

They're listed because they have abilities that can be used in close combat, they can act as the archer, and so they're not going to be so strung up on the bow that they will retreat when faced with melee.

You have to specialize if you want be really effective at something in D&D and specialization is the whole point of PrCs.

Thus the problem with PC archers... they're best when not close to the bad guy, and most DnD encounters are up close and personal.

I'm puzzled as to why you included bards though.

Because everyone leaves the bards to the last, since they're really no threat. Heh. Actually it's because they already function as a support character, and archery is a rear-guard type thing, so they go well together.

Just because you've lost your bow or are fighting something where it's not effective, doesn't mean you have to run and hide.

Right. So when the enemies show up they can draw. I have no problem with that. But because the PC DWS has everything specialized in the bow, he will have only light armor, his DEX, and his moderate HPs to protect him.

More to come... must go take an erg test...

 

[Rackhir]

Any way you look at it, the archer doesn't want to be close to the guys he's firing at, right? So when they get closer, they'll want to back off, right? Backing off means not getting in a full-round Rapid Shot action. So rate of fire decreases. I don't see the point of contention.

They're listed because they have abilities that can be used in close combat, they can act as the archer, and so they're not going to be so strung up on the bow that they will retreat when faced with melee.

Thus the problem with PC archers... they're best when not close to the bad guy, and most DnD encounters are up close and personal.

Because everyone leaves the bards to the last, since they're really no threat. Heh. Actually it's because they already function as a support character, and archery is a rear-guard type thing, so they go well together.

Right. So when the enemies show up they can draw. I have no problem with that. But because the PC DWS has everything specialized in the bow, he will have only light armor, his DEX, and his moderate HPs to protect him.

Well my archers have always been among the characters with the highest HP in the party. The worst HD I've seen for an archer class is D8, which matches the best of the non-fighters (Clerics). Pretty much every archer is likely to have at least a few fighter levels and quite possibly some barb levels. So I don't know where you are getting moderate HPs from.

Light armor yes, but the difference between your typical archer armor (mithril chain shirt) and full plate is only a difference of +4, most of which is likely to be made up in dex bonus. So it's not like the AC is going to be appreciably worse. Only a full plate with large magic shield is going to be substantially better.

Finally, archers usually seem to be among the top damage dealers for fighter types. So few non-BBEGs will last very long near one. Thirty foot is the optimal range for archers in terms of to hit and damage bonuses (though not quite as much as in 3.0 now that the +2 dam from weapon spec is not 30' limited in 3.5). By Some Strange Coincidence this is also a standard move action for creatures. An archer at optimal range is thus never going to be out of easy melee combat range.

So aside from the threat of sundering, there isn't really any reason for an archer to be nearly as cowardly as you are suggesting they have to be. Even if the enemy has closed with them and they don't have the No AoO ability for firing their bow, all it takes is a 5' step back and they can get off a full attack with relative immunity. Given that they can get off a full attack most rounds, they have a decided edge against any melee combatants who will likely have to give up a full attack to close with the archer.

Trip and disarm attacks by the way screw up pretty much anyone other than a caster. Archers are no more or less vulnerable to such attacks.

More to come... must go take an erg test...

Does the erg test mean you've run out of energy?