I'm annoyed at archers.

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What ranges are these fights starting at?

In a forest the typical starting range is 110 feet (half that if the PCs don't have a good Spot check).

Maybe you just need to change the terrain.

 

[Rackhir]

I for one would like to know exactly what the stats are on these characters so we have a better idea of if it's a question of poor construction/tactics or the archers are just that much better. It's always nice to have actual data to go on rather than just broad generalizations.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Has anyone mentioned the quick draw feat? Its a counter to the Grapple an archer thing, which would make an archer who has feats to spare (if a fighter) more lethal.

I do think that archers are overpowered. In our campaign we have our first devoted archer (who is new to the party) and he does twice the damage of any other. The party is 13th level and the archer could only come in with +3 or less items. All the others in the group had custom weapons they had found while adventuring, most bordering the +5 enhancement.

In the first 10 combats, 2 against undead, the archer did 35% of the damage, in a party of 7. And to make it worse the archer dropped at least one creature or did all the damage in the first round at a range of 300 ft (If it was daytime and could see the enemy).

Our charging paladin with his flyby attacks was barely getting into the battle when we didn't need him anymore.

The only thing that keeps the archer in check is that he is running out of arrows. So as soon as the worst part of the battle is over he goes to melee...

One suggestion is to count carefully the arrows. A hasted archer of 11+ level in a normal combat can unleash 25 arrows. Well after a couple battles like that his quiver may start getting scarce on arrows. This would be one way to balance it. Plus, like Legolas, using arrows only made by elves or their race can make it more interesting. A house rule on using foreign arrows can make things interesting.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If you change the Rapid Shot penalty to -5, are you going to do the same thing for ambidexterity/TWF? Spending two feats to get one extra attack per round is the same for archers and two-weapon fighters (PBS/RS nets -2/-2; Amb/TWF nets -2/-2). Why isn't anyone crying about the elven ranger/rogue dual wielding two finessed shortswords with free feats, getting sneak attack on every attack?

Remember that the damage bonus from weapon specialization only applies within 30' (ditto for PBS, of course).

I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken except when taken to extremes -- and everything in D&D eventually breaks when taken to extremes.

 

[Moleculo]

For the post above comparing the melee with ranged fighters, you can't keen a bow, because only slashing weapons may be keened.

Also, i dont really see the GMW coming into play with Buddha's party since he hasnt mentioned the presnece of any magic users in his party. (not to say that GMW isnt potentially unbalancing) I like the idea of splitting the bonuses though, between arrows for damage and bows for attack bonus. The only problem is that might nerf the bow a little too much, in the case that one isnt using a magic bow or arrow in conjunction.

jake

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Oh, another thought. If you insist on splitting the attack/damage bonuses from the bow and arrow, I'd do it the other way around: attack bonus to the arrow, damage bonus to the bow.

Reasoning (acknowledged: shaky ground due to applying anything real-world to D&D) -- quality of arrows affects the accuracy of archery far more than the quality of a bow. With the same bow, going to a higher quality (higher +) arrow won't change penetration (damage) much, but will improve accuracy. Likewise, going to a better quality bow with the same arrow is likely to increase the energy the arrow retains, which more readily translates to more penetration (damage) than more accuracy.

'Course there's the whole accuracy vs. penetration thing to consider for damage, too, so -

YMMV.

 

[Mulkhoran]

For the post above comparing the melee with ranged fighters, you can't keen a bow, because only slashing weapons may be keened.

jake

They errata'd this. Arrows can be Keen now.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

If you change the Rapid Shot penalty to -5, are you going to do the same thing for ambidexterity/TWF? Spending two feats to get one extra attack per round is the same for archers and two-weapon fighters (PBS/RS nets -2/-2; Amb/TWF nets -2/-2).

Just in case anyone is folled by this argument...

Changing Rs to -5 and adding IRS (ugh) for -2 is precisely to make it like TWF/AMBI. TWF or ambi alone is very close to a -5, tho it varies iirc by weapons chosen so it might vary between -4 and -6 or some such. It takes two feats which do nothing else but give you the extra attack option to get to -2.

You cannot toss in the prerequisite PBS and pretend that it counts because it actually does something worthwhile... it provides its own +1/+1 to the mix that stacks with focus and spec.

I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken except when taken to extremes -- and everything in D&D eventually breaks when taken to extremes.

Since i do not consider fighters spending feats on combat abilites extreme and since i dont consider PCs using GMW extreme considering its on wizards, sorcerers, and clerics lists... I do not consider any of this taken to the extreme. This is what a sensible party would be doing, using the abilities they have. Any fighter can have practically everything listed by 12th level, slightly beyond mid-level. Thats not extreme at all.

if you consider archery, taking feats in archery, taking less than half your feats in archery, or using 3rd level spells, or later 7th level spells and feats sagaciously to all be extreme, then i can see your point.

 

[Endur]

You have it backwards. Melee is for the stars of the game. Archers is for the backups in the game.

Assume average party level is X. 4 characters are level X, one is X+1, one is X-1.

The X-1 character should be in back firing missile weapons. The X+1 character should be out front in toe to toe melee with the enemy. All other things the same, the X+1 character has the best chance to survive the Terrible Monsters.

After all, melee is where you risk life and limb.

My experience in 3e is that archers are easier to powergame, take less damage, dish out more damage, and then have little to no weakness that the melee type doesn't. Melee is the place for hirelings and archery is for PCs, and I like playing melee characters.

 

[Unseelie]

You have it backwards. Melee is for the stars of the game. Archers is for the backups in the game.

I prefer the ensemble(sp?) cast concept... all of the PCs are stars in their own right. They all get their screen time. They all get to shine.

Think Kelly's Heroes or Ocean's Eleven.