Archery is better than swordsmanship?

[Victim]

There's one other issue with archery.

It doesn't really control the enemies. Stick a tank fighter up front and foes have to get around him before they can hit the more squishy targets like wizards, or archers. Although the archer will do more damage, if you stick him up front, his bow gets broken, and if you stick him in back, you're not defending everyone else.

In one game, a low level archer has lost around 4 bows.

 

[Lord Ben]

A raging barbarian with a spiked chain makes for great battlefield control.

 

[Victim]

A raging barbarian with a spiked chain makes for great battlefield control.

Yes.

 

[Zenon]

Even with 18 Str, Weapon Specialization, and a +2 sword, it would only be 12.5 average points of damage IF the Fighter hits. Even with two weapons, the average damage per round would still be less than 14 points.

I think your math is a little off if we're talking about a greatsword wielding fighter (which I thought we were but I could be wrong):

18 STR - +4 modifier, upped to +6 for 2 handed use
Weapon Specialization - +2
+2 Sword - +2

That's 10 points of damage just from stat, feat and weapon alone.

Now average in the result of 2d6 for the greatsword (7 pnts) for around 17 average damage if the fighter hits.

If you were talking about longsword average damage, I believe you are correct with the 12.5 figure.

 

[shurai]

Fighters at the level average nowhere near 14 points of damage per round for a single opponent, let alone multiple ones. Even with 18 Str, Weapon Specialization, and a +2 sword, it would only be 12.5 average points of damage IF the Fighter hits. Even with two weapons, the average damage per round would still be less than 14 points.

A 5th level fighter with a reasonable amount of tweakage (Greatsword +1 flaming, wpn spec, 18 str), is dealing, on average 19 points of damage.

Even a fighter who goes the sword & board route (Bastard Sword +1 flaming, wpn spec, 18 str), is dealing, on average 16 points. This is per attack.

Even if you back it off to default-array characters (16 str after 4th level ability point increase) you're still getting 17 and 15 points respectively, per attack.

If we rock it all the way back to a +2 sword instead of +1 flaming, it's still 15 and 13 points each, per attack. Multiple attacks, cleave, power attack, and other stuff will change it of course.

So if we leave out the feats, assume default-array characters, and scale back the magic weapon a bit, and assume that only one attack hits, then the fighter is getting roughly equal damage per round against one opponent.

-S

PS- I do agree with you about the rest of your post though, Fireball is definitely strong for its ability to garauntee a fair amount of damage against many opponents. The numbers you were giving for fighters were a little low, that's all.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

A raging barbarian with a spiked chain makes for great battlefield control

A Psy Warrior with a spiked chain, Stand Still, and the Reach power is great for battlefield control. 15 feet of whirring, movement stopping death

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There's one other issue with archery.

It doesn't really control the enemies. Stick a tank fighter up front and foes have to get around him before they can hit the more squishy targets like wizards, or archers. Although the archer will do more damage, if you stick him up front, his bow gets broken, and if you stick him in back, you're not defending everyone else.

In one game, a low level archer has lost around 4 bows.

That is an excellent point that many people overlook when they optimize. Yes, it is quite possible your archer averages better damage . . . if an ally stands in front of you to keep the baddies out of your face. No ally = dead archer.

Second of all, the archer damage is only optimized when within point blank range of the target. Point blank is usually 30 ft. Guess what? That puts you within easy reach of a melee attacker. (See point 1.)

Thirdly, a lot of anti-wizard tricks work well against archers, in particular, wall and fog spells will force the archer to either retreat or advance within harm's way. If the wizard and archer are standing in the back dishing out heap big damage, you will see a lot of these spells used against you. Note that many of these spells are low level, even common orcs can easily have a shaman who can pull it off.

A melee grunt with a good plus weapon and Blind Fighting is really the most consistent way of taking down powerful foes, especially once those foes becomes weird and magical.

A final comment, a lot of things in D&D do not make sense unless you look at the game as an effort in teamwork. I play a meatshield in one campaign that is optimized for defense, not offense. The archer in the party averages at least twice as much damage per combat as I do. Is that a problem? No, I am banking on his archery skills. Working together I think we are more effective that hogging glory as individuals.

 

[Larcen]

My personal favorite is ray of enfeeblement on archers with mighty composite longbows. Or dragon bile poison (DC 26 save or take 3D6 Str loss). It puts their character and their rusty swords to the test .

Unless I am mistaken, a weak character can still use mighty composite bows, they just won't get the bow's strength bonus of course. Look at it as not pulling the arrow back all the way?

 

[Corlon]

about all these #s and stuff... couldn't you just go up to them, target their bow, and then slice through it with one chop, they don't have that much hardness, and if an antimagic field is cast.. uh oh

 

[CRGreathouse]

about all these #s and stuff... couldn't you just go up to them, target their bow, and then slice through it with one chop, they don't have that much hardness, and if an antimagic field is cast.. uh oh

Sure, as long as the attaking weapon has an enhancement bonus at least as high as the bow's...