Archer Ranger vs 2-Weapon Ranger

[Rackhir]

In general, I agree ... but if a character decides he wants to use a bow in melee combat instead of at range where it is intended to be used, he deserves what he gets.

I wouldn't attack an archer's weapon if he were fighting from range, but were he using it in a threatened area intentionally as in the OP's scenario, I'd sunder away until he got the hint.

In a standard 4 character party or on his own as in the OP's scenario, he might not have any choice other than to be the front line most or all of the time and that usually means being in Melee range. Trust me on this. If the DM has half a brain, there are enough ways to screw with an archer and enough situations where they are hamstrung or ineffective that the DM doesn't have to go out of their way to screw them over.

Also nobody ever suggests that the mage should be getting his staff sundered all the time, or the cleric's holy symbol or the TWF's daggers. All of which are equally vulnerable to being sundered. Yet if the player is an archer everyone is like "Sunder, Sunder, Sunder". Being an archer is not that effective or overpowering, that they are the only ones who should be punished by having their stuff destroyed by the DM. Believe me it gets DAMMED annoying when it is happening repeatedly an ONLY to your character.

And it's not like D&D is so totally realistic that only what would happen in reality is what you have to be doing in the adventure. The realistic action is that you cut the archer down with a single hit from a melee weapon if you over ran his position.

 

[Oryan77]

The DM can always set up character and encounters that prey upon the weaknesses of characters and flaws in their designs. Only poor DMs rely on that to challenge their characters though.

I wasn't really needing pointers on how to be a better DM, I'm not lacking in the DM etiquette department, but thanks for the input.

If I'm going to play a smart fighter NPC, it only makes sense that they go for the sunder on a bow. Not every NPC is going to try, but any trained fighter will take that bow out first if it's a threat to him. D&D rules have allowed archers to fighter better with a bow in melee than a swordsman (in my case anyway). It shouldn't be that way. I think the Arrow Mind & similiar abilities were meant to help the archer out if he got caught unexpectedly in a melee fight with his bow in hand....not rely on the bow in a melee fight.

If I was better with tactics, the Drow would have sundered the bow. If I have NPC's going for the sunder all the time, it's not because I want to destroy that bow...it's because those NPC's are basically saying, "You better put that bow away and pull out your swords".

A couple attempts at a sunder and I think the PC would realize that he shouldn't rely on his bow to take down a trained swordsman in melee combat. If bows were meant to be that effective, no one would have ever bothered training with a sword.

I can imagine an archer good enough to use a bow in melee....but there's a reason it's not common...it's too easy for a sword to snap a bow in melee combat.

Only poor Archers risk losing their bow by relying on it in melee combat

 

[Endur]

everyone is like "Sunder, Sunder, Sunder".

The bow should not be sundered in every combat.

But, neither should an archer have his bow out in every combat.

Robin Hood, one of the most famous archers from mythology, is also renowned for using a quarterstaff and a sword.

Odysseus and other Greek Heroes who were renowned for their archery used other weapons.

If the archer tries to use a bow in melee, it should be broken.

 

[Bad Paper]

Also nobody ever suggests that the mage should be getting his staff sundered all the time, or the cleric's holy symbol or the TWF's daggers.

I know a cleric who wishes this were true.

 

[Quartz]

If the archer tries to use a bow in melee, it should be broken.

QFT.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

or has cast the spell arrowmind

 

[Machiavelli]

Arrowmind is silly. The reasoning behind a bow drawing AoO's is that a bow requires a very strict combination of somewhat unnatural movements that lock the limbs into positions of untenable defense. What possible magical spell could prevent that? Okay, I've thought of a couple ways the spell could work, but both necessarily entail negative side-effects:

Perhaps a cousin of Mage Hand could use a force effect to fire the bow with the same skill and effective precision that the archer could, but only because the archer would be actively concentrating on the spell (drawing AoO's anyway). Perhaps the spell would be automated, drawing the bowstring and leaving the archer free to defend himself, but then the spell's "stats" and "abilities" would be dependent upon the archer's skill as a caster; like handing your magical bow to a nearby NPC to keep firing while you engage in melee.

Anything else just seems, to me, silly. Endur's right, you DESERVE a sundered bow when you cast Arrow Mind.
Either that or your DM deserves his NPC getting butchered for allowing it

 

[javcs]

Disarm.

Major penalties for his wielding a ranged weapon. Plus, he'll have to pull out his blades.

 

[silentspace]

I make TWF Rangers with focus on Strength, not Dex. Does more damage, and saves a feat (Weapon Finesse) too. They don't need Dex as a prereq for their TWF feats, since they get them for free as bonus feats.

 

[Darklone]

I make TWF Rangers with focus on Strength, not Dex. Does more damage, and saves a feat (Weapon Finesse) too. They don't need Dex as a prereq for their TWF feats, since they get them for free as bonus feats.

I even do my archery rangers with higher focus on strength. Dex shouldn't be too low either, but if you got a 18 and a 16, I'll put the 18 on strength.

You need it for the damage.