archer vs. melee, 3.5 and all that

[Eben]

I don't consider myself experienced or anything (10 years rpg and wargaming, DM'ed and played4 or 5 different systems), so forgive me if I talk rubbish.

Why does this need a fix? We've been playing D&D for about 2 years now and while I can understand some of the problems WotC wants to fix with 3.5, there also is a lot of stuff that seems to me to be an non-issue.

I suspect that a lot of these "problems" arise when you use the game a certain way. The archery thing is for me a typical example. When you say that archers can be more powerfull than other fighters, I'll believe you. But by fixing this, maybe you'll get the reverse problem. If you go for powerplay, sooner or later you'll find some killer combo that makes a certain type of character more powerfull.
After having played some different systems (gurps, rolemaster, storyteller, warhammer, basic roleplaying, kult, chill, WEG's Star Wars, Shadowrun and probably some others I've totally repressed from memeory), I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a fix. Fix something and it's just a matter of time before somebody else will find that this or that is out of balance.

While it's good that 3e was created with the idea of game balance in mind, it should not become the holy cow of game design. Frankly, it would take the fun out of gaming for me. Some of us gamers like to just create a charactger, following the concepts in the in the rules and find out during play how this character will evolve. And maybe he'll be powerfull and maybe not. I like to play and find out: this experience will help to define how a character will react to certain situations.

As a casual gamer, I feel it's rather early to be changing all these things to the system. I don't feel I've gotten enough mileage out of this current edition. And all the "problems" I've noted so far haven't even come up in our games.It just seems to me that all these "issues" could be dealt with in a set of optional rules.

Just my rant of course and I'm probably wrong since most people seem to be pro 3.5 (well, I'm not against, just a bit indifferent and confused). Just wanted it of my chest. Happy gaming!

 

[Will]

I'm with you...

The archer thing... well, sure you can have two weapon enhancements. That always struck me as a fair balance, considering that enchantments on arrows are ablative (get used up as arrows are fired). Also makes up for the fact that archers typically have to run away from direct confrontations...

I played a rogue archer at middling levels (~10), and let me tell you... if I accidentally got within melee range of monsters, I was in serious trouble.


I'm willing to see how the change unfolds, but ... I didn't think it was that bad.

Same with haste and other issues, but maybe I just haven't encountered many of the abuses.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

One of the problems people talk about here is the Greater Magic Weapon spell. Rumor has it that this spell will be tuned down in the revised PH to +1 for every 4 caster levels instead of every 3. This means that you don't get +3 weapons and ammo until caster level 12.

I have not had too many problems with the Arcane Archer in my game yet. He is good with his bow and arrows, but so is the barbarian with his bastard sword and the wizard with his empowered lightning bolts.

 

[Gargoyle]

I'd venture to say that the 3.5 revision is not really targetted toward casual gamers. Casual gamers don't buy a lot of books.

I disagree with you that fixes aren't necessary. For example, I think archers are too powerful because they have an inherent advantage: They can hit melee characters without being hit back . Therefore they shouldn't do as much damage.

(edit: Rereading the above, I think I oversimplified it a bit. What I meant was that archers can use the full attack action more often to fire multiple attacks, because the melee guy has to go to them. Also, they often get first blood, and have melee companions as a front line who punish charging melee opponents with AoO's. )

But I'm a hard core gamer, so it's predictable that I would care about an issue that many gamers don't care about. For instance, many of my players are casual gamers, and don't even realize that archers have it too good, let alone care. They just want to slay some stuff while munching on cheetohs and gulping down Mountain Dew. (The fact that you post here btw, makes you less of a casual gamer than you might realize....)

Then again, put altogether, they haven't bought nearly as many WOTC books as I have. Therefore, from a person in WOTC's marketing department's viewpoint, I am right and they are wrong.

Beyond capitalism, I think the 3.5 revision is necessary to keep the game fresh. Three years is quite a long time, IMO. I've gotten countless hours out of my books, and feel like I've received my money's worth. I can see where a casual gamer would not agree, but the changes are pretty minor, and will be in the SRD on their website, so it's not really a financial burden to use the new rules, as much as it is a small learning curve.

It's a philosophical thing I suppose. Rather than "Don't fix it if it ain't broken", I believe that "You must constantly improve things, or they will die".

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm with you...

The archer thing... well, sure you can have two weapon enhancements. That always struck me as a fair balance, considering that enchantments on arrows are ablative (get used up as arrows are fired). Also makes up for the fact that archers typically have to run away from direct confrontations...

I played a rogue archer at middling levels (~10), and let me tell you... if I accidentally got within melee range of monsters, I was in serious trouble.


I'm willing to see how the change unfolds, but ... I didn't think it was that bad.

Same with haste and other issues, but maybe I just haven't encountered many of the abuses.

I have. The fighter archer is the problem, not the rogue. Arrows do get used up, but when you have double the enhancement bonus, it's worth it. You get treasure faster for being a killing machine, which helps you afford the arrows while getting more XP. Fighter archers can soak up the damage at melee, and thanks to the 5ft. step can continue to use their ranged attacks with little difficulty. (edit: They also get a ton of feats, and there are a lot of archery feats).

But if you think 3.0 haste isn't broken, there's nothing I can say that will convince you.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Suppose a melee character wants to hit an archer, so they ready an action. The archer can take a 5 foot step to avoid drawing an AoO for firing, then get a full-round attack into the melee character's face. The 5-foot mechanic is confusing, so it's difficult to tell if a melee character can hit the archer.

The game was designed for dungeons. At longer ranges (eg wilderness) spellcasters and archers are more powerful.

 

[Petrosian]

IMX the focus on balance is for two reasons...

1. for the casual gamer who does not see minmaxing his character as a goal, an art form, or a skill for which you think you ought to be rewarded, then just building a "character" to fit a concept and not a game mechanic should be a reasonable approach which gives you a reasonably enjoyable and suitably productive character. One of my first tasks when analyzing any system is to pick several common genre characters and see how well the system represents them quickly and easily without extension SYSTEM WORK.

2. Reining in the minmaxers. peventing some of the most egregious abuses.

These are very much a part of the same coin.

basically, think of it as the degree of the learning curve. How much SYSTEM WORK and SYSTEM EXPERIENCE matters in character design. HERO games for instance has a very high learning curve and the difference between a newbie building a simple character and a vateran building the same character will be seen as a drastic power difference.

So, i do understand the focus on balance,.

However, what is too often overlooked is that balance does not exist in a vacuum. DND 3e went a little ways down this road to recognition with the wealth levels and availability guidelines, but that falls far short.

Simply put, the value of any trait or skill or characteristic or power is solely determined by its usefulness in the specific challenges presented. Does your campaign feature an event driven major arc where the PCs are reacting to the spread of evil and where it is frequent that PCs are engaged in multiple encounters per day, ambushes are common as the dark hunters pursue the chosen ones, and where capture and loss of gear is not only expected but not even infrequent? Then do not look for a wizard PC to be that strong.

If the campaign story and challenges are built and ran competently with the PCs in mind, then most balance problems fade away quickly and the characters run very balanced.

While it's good that 3e was created with the idea of game balance in mind, it should not become the holy cow of game design. Frankly, it would take the fun out of gaming for me. Some of us gamers like to just create a charactger, following the concepts in the in the rules and find out during play how this character will evolve. And maybe he'll be powerfull and maybe not. I like to play and find out: this experience will help to define how a character will react to certain situations.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

My guess is that they will simply make bonuses not stack, or have bow bonuses only affect accuracy and arrow bonuses only affect damage.

If they do go with this, I would also speculate that magical bows and arrows may be cheaper than magical melee weapons to balance it out.

 

[Mercule]

Throw me in the camp that doesn't see a problem with archers as they stand.

My group actually scoffs at archers as being hopelessly underpowered compared to melee fighters. Of course, we consider Hasting a spellcaster to be a waste of a spell compared to using it on a fighter.

I'm pretty sure my group has a non-standard style, though.

 

[green slime]

I'd be just happy if GMW didn't affect 50 arrows at one casting, and instead affected one. That would do away with most abuses, IMO.

I mean if you are willing to pay for "permanent" +5 arrows that break 50% of the time... I don't mind the bonus stacking.