I'm annoyed at archers.

[LordAO]

I'm getting awful tired of people complaining that the enchantment bonus from bows and arrows stack. For one thing, arrows are one use items. A melee character is benefiting from his sword every time he hits, and it never runs out. Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.

And, yes, the Arcane Archer does it for free. But considering that the rest of his abilities aren't that great and are only once a day, so what? The Order of the Bow Initiate has far better class abilities than the arcane archer, if it weren't for the automatic enhancement bonus, the arcane archer would be next to pointless.

 

[Wormwood]

Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.

GMW ain't that expensive, and that stacks like pancakes.

 

[Deadguy]

I'm getting awful tired of people complaining that the enchantment bonus from bows and arrows stack. For one thing, arrows are one use items. A melee character is benefiting from his sword every time he hits, and it never runs out. Ammunition does run out, and + arrows are EXTREMELY expensive! For the same cost, I could get a wand and do a heck of alot more then the archer's doing.

The trouble isn't so much with the magic arrows themselves - I agree that they're expensive for what they are. Too expensive? Yes for genral use, but a wise archer stores his arrows and uses the appropriate arrow for the circumstance.

No the trouble is with the large numbers of arrows created by the greater magic weapon spell every day. At 15th level that's 50 +5 arrows for every casting that are going to last plenty long enough to be useful. Any archer worth his salt already has his bow ensorcelled as his best weapon, so the arrows are the icing on the cake. It just seems unreasonable that only a missile-weapon user gets to 'double dip' the bonuses. Who else can get a +10 enhancement bonus to attack? The net effect is that the archer's arrows seem to hit true every round, whilst the tanks are struggling in the thick of the melee.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

To this and the following message...
Now we throw in archer thieves, with improved invis firing for +5d6 to +7d6 sneaks. Remember, firing across a partner provides COVER, not concealment, so he can sneak at will while the tank who has the high AC holds you there.

If my PC starts getting hammered by rogues, his first action is to reach into his backpack for that Obscuring Mist scroll. By the time PCs have +5d6 sneak attacks (9th level) and improved invisibility (7th level), the enemies ought to have some way of dealing it. Barbarian or rogue levels, darkness, mist, displacement, Fortification Armor, Blink, Invisibility Purge, See Invisibility, True Seeing, or simply being construct, elemental, or undead.

Sneak attacking rogue archers can be effective, but shouldn't destroy all encounters. There is a wide variety of ways for intelligent foes to deal with sneak attacks and invisibility by that point and many unintelligent foes are immune to them.

When i was designing my elven fighter. i avoided taking any focus and such weapon specific feats until about 4th. Then i went with my magical greataxe. As i began to look, i realized that by like 12th level i could be doing more, significantly more, if i went bowman with point blank,precise, rapid, focus and spec than i was already with the axe. Once you get to mid level and beyond, fighters will find hitting is fairly easy in many, many cases. -2 is negligable for an extra swing. its easily compensated by the double enhancement bonuses from GMW and the like.

Well part of the issue here is that your character was an elven fighter. High dex, low con. Of course you're going to be a better archer than melee fighter. Make the character a half-orc, dwarf, or human, and things change a little.

Really though, I don't think you're right about the comparison. If GMW (a 3rd or 4th level spell) is automatically included in the archer comparisons, the melee fighter should be able to assume buffs as well.

Taking a really simple example:
Elf Ftr 8: Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12 PBS, PS, RS, WF: comp longbow, WS: comp longbow, Imp Crit: comp longbow, Bracers of Archery, +1 Flaming bow, clvl 8 GMW on arrows
Atk +16/+16/+11 (1d8+10+1d6) Avg 19/hit
Elf Ftr 12: As above, clvl 12 GMW, +2 Flaming bow
Atk +23/+23/+18/+13 (1d8+13+1d6) Avg 22/hit

Half-orc Ftr 8: Str 18 (20), Dex 12, Con 14, WF Greataxe, WS Greataxe, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Imp Crit: Greataxe, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, +1 Corrosive Greataxe, Haste Spell
Atk +17 (haste partial charge)/+15/+10 & cleaves (1d12+9+1d6) avg. 19/hit
Half-orc Ftr 12: As above but Str (21) +2 Frost greataxe, Blindfight, Combat Reflexes, Expert Tactician, Power Critical
Atk +22 (haste partial charge)/+20/+15/+10 (and cleaves) (1d12+10+1d6 avg 20/hit)

On the face of it, it looks like the melee fighter is a bit behind in damage dealing. But there are three other factors: the melee character has several other options for more attacks. He has great cleave which enables him to get an indeterminate number of extra attacks if he faces multiple weak foes. He also has expert tactician which enables hit to attack again (at his highest attack bonus) against any foe without their dex bonus. If he rolls well for intiative, is improved invisible, or has a comrade cast darkness on him (sure, he can't see but his opponents can't either and therefore lose their dex bonus--expert tactician kicks in and he can use Blindfight for added advantage), this is better than rapid shot. The melee character can also trade in unneeded attack bonus for damage with power attack. The melee character can also use power critical for an automatic critical threat. Used on the partial charge with power attack 2, that will yield an average of 59 points of damage (3d12+36+1d6).

But the comparison still plays to the archer's strengths. The melee character would get a lot of milage out of multiclassing to barbarian--even if only for one level (and then taking the extra rage feat). That would punch his attack bonusses and damages significantly higher--defeating the archer in either contest.

So while you may be resplete with how to stop the long range archer, the issue is more the archer in the mix, working behind a fighter wall or just relying on movement and feats just like the other fighter.

Stopping the long range archer isn't an issue. Since bracers of archery, weapon specialization, and sneak attack all only work within 30 feet, the archer's damage goes down dramatically at long range. The 30' range archer is still quite defeatable (anything that cuts off line of sight works--fog, darkness, etc--and the archer is within charge and sunder (or power critical) range). The Shoot on the Run 45' range (move to 30', fire, move back) archer is a bit harder to deal with but not much.

Archers contribute to a party, but even with the stacking enhancement bonusses, they shouldn't dominate a well-constructed melee character.

 

[Bryan898]

I agree that archers can do some heavy damage, but so can a fighting type if equipped right. Couple a high strength score and strength and a half for two-handed weapon with specialization, power attacks, and magical weapon modifier and you can easily do 2d6+20 damage an attack. But all in all it comes down to the simple fact that any class can be simply overpowering... You could rain hell on everything with enervations coupled with haste with wizards/sorcerors... or a nice little harm and quickened inflict light with a cleric. They all have some rather cheesy stuff. Just look at my Epic level paladin, b/c greater smite stacks I can smite 8 times a day for +250 damage each, with my brilliant energy i rarely miss, and anything else i use my holy sword spell for which automatically does double damage anyway. As for fighters not being able to catch enemies, you can perform double moves... or even better you can run, you provoke attacks of opportunity if close enough, but you can always also stop before the fight. Also, I don't know about you, but most of my campaigns fights dont happen in big open fields, and I dont always see the enemy first. I had a big bad archer like those, and he worked great untill a hidden enemy sundered my bow, which is quite easy to do. I lost my str and magical damage in one strike, and was rendered useless for quite a while.
However I think it all comes down to one question... are your players power playing or are they role-playing... cause it really sounds like the former. It seems that a lot of people are doing this for the purpose of being more powerful.
I do believe that the power of the archer is somewhat justified though, because like it was said, it was the reason for decline of melee weapons. However it was also a big reason for the creation of armor, and it holds true that a low level archer would have a smaller chance at hitting a fully armored warrior. But these archers are obviously expert marksmen and have magic to help them, quite scary.

 

[LokiDR]

Archers. I hate archers.

- Jamie Lannister

Archers in D&D can dish out lots of pain at long ranges. Melee fighters can dish out arguebly more at close range. So what? I'll tell you what.

Fighters/Barbarians are there to be tossed into the meat grinder. The melee types charge in and prevent your back line from taking fire, while your back line lays them down. Melee are pawns. How is this ever heroic? If the melee types typically had twice the hp that the archers had, I could see that being fair. "I can take the pain and keep going, and take several of those bastards with me." But once the melee guy gets there, he hits the archer a few times, the archer steps back, and the archer pin cushon's him. If the melee types get to the archers, the archers should be more screwed than that.

I want archers to feel usefull, and I don't like to be annoying and cut bows to ribbons, but what other choice is there? If the melee did have more hp, due only to con really, he lost those on the way to the archer.

I am most annoyed with the whole prospect of archery because I am playing a wizard who enters melee (polymorph into outsiders because I am an outsider). The cleric of archery gets most the kills now (14th level) and I am as buffed as I can get. I can poly into a vrock, cast an 2xempowered bulls str, and take all my 5 natural attacks, and still not match his damage, AC, or spells remaining. And I had to run up to this guy, who is now hitting me?

Melee, in general, is a thankless death job. There is no good way to be defened from missles unless you carry a tower shield. Is that the only way for melee characters to survive? Heros in stories don't do that, alone or in a group. And for once, I would like to be one of those heros.

 

[hong]

I agree that archers can do some heavy damage, but so can a fighting type if equipped right. Couple a high strength score and strength and a half for two-handed weapon with specialization, power attacks, and magical weapon modifier and you can easily do 2d6+20 damage an attack.

An archer can do a full attack from range, often without too much worry about getting attacked back. A tank who does a full attack, and doesn't take down the target, often risks lovely things like energy drain, ability drain, poison, improved grab, swallow whole, etc. At high levels, melee types who stick around in front of a dragon are just looking to get eaten.

However I think it all comes down to one question... are your players power playing or are they role-playing... cause it really sounds like the former. It seems that a lot of people are doing this for the purpose of being more powerful.

What's wrong with power playing?

 

[hong]

On the face of it, it looks like the melee fighter is a bit behind in damage dealing. But there are three other factors: the melee character has several other options for more attacks. He has great cleave which enables him to get an indeterminate number of extra attacks if he faces multiple weak foes.

IME, Great Cleave is one of the more useless feats once you hit mid- to high levels. Anything that you can kill in one hit probably wasn't a threat to begin with. It's the things that can take the damage and hit back that you should be worrying about.

He also has expert tactician which enables hit to attack again (at his highest attack bonus) against any foe without their dex bonus.

Again IME, this isn't likely to come up unless you actually work at it. Improved invis is probably the most reliable method, and that isn't exactly common. The rogue is probably also going to want first dibs on it.

If he rolls well for intiative, is improved invisible, or has a comrade cast darkness on him (sure, he can't see but his opponents can't either and therefore lose their dex bonus--expert tactician kicks in and he can use Blindfight for added advantage), this is better than rapid shot.

I think the other party members might have something to say about taking away THEIR vision....

The melee character can also trade in unneeded attack bonus for damage with power attack.

This is probably the biggest trump that the melee guy has going for him. I don't think it's sufficient to tip the balance, however, especially when you consider the range of monster specials that only come into play in melee.

The melee character can also use power critical for an automatic critical threat.

Well, if we're using splatbooks, the archer character can also use Manyshot to get an effective full attack with a standard action each round. Overall, I don't think much of most of the splatbook feats.


[edit: made up a "Power Strike" feat to let tanks dish out more damage in conjunction with Spring Attack:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32184

Comments appreciated.]

 

[Black Omega]

Entirely agreed. People think of mages as the artillery. They're not - fighters pull off that job much more expertly. Wizards are the combat engineers.

I suppose this could depend on the spellcaster. The games I've seen the spellcaster was the one blowing up large sections of the battlefield from a long distance, but otherwise fragile and needing protection. Fairly close to the role of artillery. How do you see fighters more as artillery?

Archers are a combination sniper and machinegun, even more so as theyr rise in level and get more and more shots per round.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Well, if we're using splatbooks, the archer character can also use Manyshot to get an effective full attack with a standard action each round. Overall, I don't think much of most of the splatbook feats.

Which splatbook?

I am most annoyed with the whole prospect of archery because I am playing a wizard who enters melee (polymorph into outsiders because I am an outsider). The cleric of archery gets most the kills now (14th level) and I am as buffed as I can get. I can poly into a vrock, cast an 2xempowered bulls str, and take all my 5 natural attacks, and still not match his damage, AC, or spells remaining. And I had to run up to this guy, who is now hitting me?

Polymorph doesn't give you extra natural attacks (you use your iterative BAB), so your character is actually weaker than you think.

What's wrong with power playing?

Some people like it; I know I don't (not since playing 2e). To each his own.