I'm annoyed at archers.

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Still trying to have a reasonable discussion here folks, let's settle down ...

For the archer, the second shot is IMPOSSIBLE without the additional feats.

This is part of my point, that this is one of the balancing effects.

And after those two feats you have an extra attack at -2 and the possibility (if using identical light weapons of have foc/spec add +1/+2.

And the net effect is obne extra attack, -2 penalties, and within 30' a +1/+1. this raises to +2/+3.

To me, the fact that for two feats the archer gains the ability to make the extra attack at all, penalties of -2, and an additional +1/+1 is important and significant.

I agree with you that the archer is slightly better than the TWF, the point I'm trying to make is the reason for the imbalance is NOT Rapid Shot, or Point Blank Shot, or the combination.

The TWF has Amb/TWF/WF/WS. He gets two attacks, each at -1/+2 (ignoring stats, magic, etc).

The archer has PBS/RS/WF/WS. He gets two attacks, each at +0/+2 within 30', and at -1/+0 outside of 30'.

Now, in my experience (I'm sure yours is different), the mix of engagements at <30' and >30' is about 50/50 (and is almost entirely under the control of the DM). I've found that at close ranges, the influence of firing into melee (unless Precise shot is taken, spending a 3rd feat), plus the influences of cover (which is almost always a factor at close range and isn't mitigated by any feat.

In my opinion, balanced does not necessarily mean equal modifiers. I (obviously) feel the system is balanced, as:

For a second archery attack, PBS+RS does not always apply, cand can suffer from cover and firing into melee when it does, whereas

The second melee attack from AMB+TWF is a benefit that can be obtained, albeit at greater penalties, by spending zero, one, or two feats.

If you attempt to redress the perceived archer-melee fighter imbalance by changing Rapid Shot, I think you swing the balance too far the other way.

And then, will you add another feat to allow an archer an additional attack at -5, to balance with Improved Two Weapon Fighting?

I think the system's fine as is, though I appreciate Petrosian's viewpoint.

 

[LokiDR]

This thread stinks

Some points:

• Yes, archers do have to count arrows. And no, my players don't go shopping after every encounter to replenish their resources.
• Calculate it like you want, archers are balanced. If you complain that an archer with Strength 18 is unbalanced, you are usually in a point buy range where the whole game starts to be unbalanced since some classes benefit more from several high stats than others.
• Archers in 30ft range to the enemies who shoot for more than one round are dead meat.
• TWF and Ambidex are worse than archery feats. That's right. But it's not a reason to downgrade archery since you still gotta compare it to twohanded greatsword twinks with Power Attack and Cleave.
• Why does noone complain about mounted archers?

Forcing archers to count amzingly cheap items they can carry large numbers of is not all that interesting and tends to take away from the game play in the tedium.


Apparently, since there are examples of damage on both sides of this disscussion, it isn't obvious.


Where are these threads you mention? I have only seen one, on sundering bows and I consider the tatic somewhat suspect. First, you have to be able to harm the weapon, with a weapon of similar enhancement. As mentioned, those capable fighters are usually busy elsewhere with the PC prerequisite meat shields. Now there is the question of getting to archer. Suck some AoOs just to get to a person to use a tatic that might not work, with all the GMW going. Now, I wonder if this enemy is just doing this because the GM wants to stop the archer if character would think it is a good idea. Since other have noted sunder monkey's don't seem too effective, it looks like the former.

I want to know why you think archers are so doomed at close range. I have not seen it.


TWF and rapid fire are directly comparable. Archery comes out ahead, by your own words, but this just means that TWF sucks. Since it is possible to build what you might call a better damage machine, it can't be that archery is good. That seems a narrow view.

Even when your greatsword/power attacking twink is dealing out more per hit, he has to close, suffering AoOs from reach monsters along with nasty melee actions like trip/improved grab/ect. Meanwhile the archer is still getting consistant damage and not being hit. The number of hits you can always get and the movement you don't have to take means the archer's total damage reaches higher, expecially with things like stacking GWM.


I have never seen any one use it. Mounted doesn't work inside of any sort of structure, where a lot of action happens. If half your fights are bar/inn/castle/dungeon, then a nice bonus when you can get it is fine by me.

As for your "improved mount" argument elsewhere, I think you are a little far streched. Read the mounted example fight in the back of sword and fist. The paladin has his mount, but the ranger has a fiendish war horse. It dies in few hits, and that was only one mounted opponent. There is your valted improved mount.

As for this thread stinking, I think you are smelling your own arguments

 

[Darklone]

Oh well, and here i had hoped for an actual attempt at a discussion. my bad.
...
I figure this is different in your world. i am sure i have even seen fiction where dragons were not the great beasts, but just saddled underlings, more than once. Thats just not the representation of dragons i prefer. YMMV and clearly does.

So perhaps, attitude not withstanding, your "humor" or derision could do with a notion of considering different game styles a little.

Fascinating. You really took that "ride a dragon" advice serious, didn't you? Well, that says it all.

For you: If you read it closely, this was an exaggeration of your mentality in previous posts to graciously explain me how high level games work. *dripping sarcasm for those who need this written*

About the archers balance. Olgar gave some nice examples. Add in +4 cover in combat (that is not nullified by precise shot) if your enemy keeps the melee fighters between you and the archers as anyone should do... and you end up with less damage statistically.

Just give me one example how an archer of any level does more damage than the melee fighter and you could as well build a melee fighter who does the same. Add Prestige classes into the fray and things get out of hand. But I haven't seen an archer smackdown so far that was sooo much better than the melee smackdowns.

You wrote that it depends on the DM if I balance things against the archers. Ever asked yourself if the DM in your examples perhaps plays the game in a way that prefers archers?

Hey guys, what about a nice little poll if archers are unbalanced ?

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

]

Now, in my experience (I'm sure yours is different), the mix of engagements at <30' and >30' is about 50/50 (and is almost entirely under the control of the DM). I've found that at close ranges, the influence of firing into melee (unless Precise shot is taken, spending a 3rd feat), plus the influences of cover (which is almost always a factor at close range and isn't mitigated by any feat.

I will give you that the archer loses some of his benefits outside 30' but i will suggest to you that the melee fighter is WORSE off at those ranges.

Inside of 30', the archer has better bonuses from the feats due to PBS. Outside of 30' the archer can still shoot while the melee fighter cannot.

I fail to see where either of these amounts to a downside for the archer.

If the fighter can get in to swing, i can get within 30'.

COVER... looking at my 15th level example, the numbers gave the archer a +4 net with one extra swing vs the THF guy. Knock off 4 for cover, which ASSUMES medium vs medium, and iirc i mentioned this in my example, and the to hits crawl back to even. So the net result is the archer gets one more attack at his highest BAB than the corresponding THF.

Now if instead you want a TWF, then after feats he gets an even number of swings but is at -2 compared to the archer who is firing across medium vs medium cover.

If the shot is across medium vs large or medium vs huge (like say Pcs vs giants or trolls or glabrezus) then this cover bonus is lowere than 4.

I will leave it to you to decide how many mid-high level enemies are smaller than the PCs to offset this.

]
In my opinion, balanced does not necessarily mean equal modifiers. I (obviously) feel the system is balanced, as:

For a second archery attack, PBS+RS does not always apply, cand can suffer from cover and firing into melee when it does, whereas

The second melee attack from AMB+TWF is a benefit that can be obtained, albeit at greater penalties, by spending zero, one, or two feats.

This makes no sense to me. as i see going from NO SHOT to SHOT as better than going from BAD SHOT to SHOT, not worse.

]
If you attempt to redress the perceived archer-melee fighter imbalance by changing Rapid Shot, I think you swing the balance too far the other way.

Understood. We disagree and thats fine. I would rather have seen some numbers to show why, but experience and guesswork is good to.

]
And then, will you add another feat to allow an archer an additional attack at -5, to balance with Improved Two Weapon Fighting?

Since i am not really all that concerned about arhcery vs TWF, since TWF seems to be fairly weak, but more concerned wioth archery vs normal melee, as you will see my examples dealth with THF, i am not all that concerned with TWF after 3-5 feats. No one in my group stuck with TWF because the anti-synergy of lower Ac, need for melee, AND the weaker to hits seemed egregious. With arhcery avoiding the need for melee range (thus more full attacks) and the worse to hit (with the double benefit from enahncements) the appeal for archery has not waned. matter of fact, now that the sor is reliably providing +4 arrows and bows for them, and in light of seeing +5 weapons and bows and arrows in just a couple levels for EVERYONE all the time (Chain Extended GMW at 15th) i am looking at a dwarven tank, a barbarian, a ranger and a rogue all looking into figuring out how to keep firing arrows as long as possible before getting FORCED into melee. +10 enhancement to damage AND hit is too much to pass up. With -2 for an extra shot, neither the rogue nor the range ever fires without rapid shot, except for standard attacks. (By comparison, i have seen many a TWF guy chose to only use one attack, for instance when the enemy had above average AC.)

]

I think the system's fine as is, though I appreciate Petrosian's viewpoint.

I can understand yours as well, tho some parts of it seem a perfect disconnect to me.

I will observe again, that i do not think any one element is grossly out of whack nor do i feel that this creates a case of overwhelming imbalance. i think it is far enough out of whack that when they get the option players will almost universally choose to use GMW, PBS, RS and archery over melee except for character personality based decisions. The results are simply better. the second stacking feat (PBS stacking with foc/spec), the double efficiency of RS, and the double enhancement effects from GMW to me all combine to create the imbalance. cutting the GMW bonuses in half (by making bow to hit and arrow damage) and splitting the double feat for RS up seems like it would bring them down to tough choices.

thank you, however, for a lively debate.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

thank you, however, for a lively debate.

Likewise!

You could always run a comparison with your RS+IRS proposal in House Rules and see how it works out.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Fascinating. You really took that "ride a dragon" advice serious, didn't you? Well, that says it all.

Yes. it says i am willing to treat even those type of comments as if i thought they had some merit, as opposed to just insulting the poster for making such.

For you: If you read it closely, this was an exaggeration of your mentality in previous posts to graciously explain me how high level games work. *dripping sarcasm for those who need this written*

Wow! Really? Nah!

So, other than storking your own bitterness, is there any point to your attacks?

About the archers balance. Olgar gave some nice examples. Add in +4 cover in combat (that is not nullified by precise shot) if your enemy keeps the melee fighters between you and the archers as anyone should do... and you end up with less damage statistically.

Even in the 15th level example i posted above, the net difference was +4. For the cases where you cannot avoid the straight thru cover AND where the target is not larger than the intervening PC, then the +4 brings them back to even to-hits except for the archer getting an extra Swing at his highest BAB. if you go with TWF, you get another -2 against the fighter AND lower strength bonus on most swings.

i do not think your "statictically" means what you think it means.

In truth tho, the value of +4 damage per attack that hits" vs "one extra attack" is very dependent on the Ac vs to hit difficulty. However, since the extra attack is at the highest BAB and the experience i have shows that is the most likely to hit, I still come out ahead for archers.

If you also factor in the "ranged means easier to get full attack" so that you expect that the archer will get say 2 rounds per fight where he uses full attack to the melee fighter's standardb attack, then it should become a no brainer.

Just give me one example how an archer of any level does more damage than the melee fighter and you could as well build a melee fighter who does the same.

That is a nice claim. A wonderful theory. however, what we keep seeing is you making claims and then saying everyone else has proved it.

This means that, your claim is worth exactly the paper it is printed on.

Add Prestige classes into the fray and things get out of hand. But I haven't seen an archer smackdown so far that was sooo much better than the melee smackdowns.

Some people see what they want to see.

You wrote that it depends on the DM if I balance things against the archers. Ever asked yourself if the DM in your examples perhaps plays the game in a way that prefers archers?

Most of my examples are generic, not specific.

For the thoughts about scenario settings, i gave a good couple of posts about that above. The most oft mentioned examples were cover at range so the archers cannot get LOS, obscurations such as fog cloud to prevent LOS, extreme winds and various nondamaging attack options. You can read my full comments above but...

cover at range... the melee fighters will do much worse against ranged opponents than the archers do. (DUH!!) If the archer cannot see neither can anyone else. he is no worse off than the melee guy here. if a melee fighter can get to melee it seems the archer can get to 30' shooting range.

obscuring mists and the like... these do allow the melee fighter to fight with 20% miss and thwart the archer. However at the same time they thwart all the other non-melee characters. The wizard and the rogue are also fairly hosed. So as a scenario balancing tool, this one seems to go out the window. it might be great for propping the melee fighter up, but at the expense of everyone else, not just the archer. this is a baby-with-the-bathwater solution. besides, from my experience, fog clouds do not last long. Someone either dispells it (so their spellcasters can take action) or it is busted as a side effect of some other attack, like fireball.

Sunder... as effective against many melee weapons and regardless not an option for a great many foes... as your typical dragon bite cannot sunder a +5 bow ever.

Grapple... well grappling seems really good for some monsters and anyone who is good at it probably gets it for free with no AoO, so i dont see how this is significantly worse for the bowman.

etc...

Anyway, responding to your ...ahem..."serious" attempt at making a point has been illuminating but, i think you and i have covered the ground that we can. Thank you for being so informative, if about you if nothing else, and helpful.

enjoy your games.

 

[officeronin]

Not to stir things up...

In my experience, TWF is underpowered, except for rogues. Comparing dual short swords to a greatsword, the average damage is identical, and the short swords are 10% less likely to hit, even with 2 weapon fighting and ambidexterity.

So, even if archery is more powerful than TWF, so what?

Yes, if the encounter distances are long, archery is a good choice, but encounter distances are not that long in the stereotypical dungeon. Archers don't threaten, so they get sundered or grappled on the enemy's charge.

Finally, since most of these examples are fighters, what is the job of the fighter? Most of the time, the rogue is doing comparable damage (if not more), so I view the job of the fighter to be holding the line so the wizards and priests can get there spells off and the rogues can manuever to get flanks. An archer isn't going to be able to do that job.

OfficeRonin

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

BTW - what house rules were you planning on introducing to nerf archery?

IceBear

I'm nerfing GMW. I'm going to make GMW affect one weapon, like Magic Weapon. No more enchanting 50 arrows.

Second, in order to not completely castrate archers, I'm making magic arrows come in quivers of 500, not 50. So a stack of 500 arrows +1 would cost 2,000 gps.


This has the effect of making archers less dependent on having a caster constantly present, while also making magical arrows an actual commodity again.
.
.
.
.
As per the rest of the thread: The math is pretty meaningless. Yes, melee characters do a bit more damage per attack than archers. That is not really the point. My main problems with archers are:


An archer can do equivalent amounts of damage as melee characters while unmolested by the bad guys, since the melee guys in the party have to maneuver to intercept the enemy, while the archers hang back and full attack/RS every round.

and

If, on the off chance an archer is attacked, there is no distinct disadvantage for an archer fighting in melee combat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW, Power Attack is not that great when you have multiple iterative attacks. IMHO, it's only good during a charge or any other situation when you are forced to take only one attack per round.

Also, TWF/AMB is good, even for non-Rogue Fighters. I used to think that two handed weapons were far superior, then I took into account the additional bonuses from specialization and magic weapons (and not just the Strength bonus). This is especially pronounced with Improved and Greater TWF. A Falchion wielder is not as good by the numbers as a TWF Rapier wielder.

(These are both trumped with Multidexterity/Multiweapon Fighting and armor spikes. *grin*)
.
.
.
.
.

Darklone---

Sadly the GM hands out items in my games... usually me. That means: No houserules needed. The PCs just don't go shopping for magic.

In the specific game I am in, PCs can buy items and enchant items based on the rules in the DMG. If you aren't using those rules, then your experiences are going to be different than mine. (Since both archers in my game have Bracers of Archery and I doubt that the PCs in your world could be as efficiently equipped.)

 

[Spatula]

I agree with you that the archer is slightly better than the TWF, the point I'm trying to make is the reason for the imbalance is NOT Rapid Shot, or Point Blank Shot, or the combination.

The TWF has Amb/TWF/WF/WS. He gets two attacks, each at -1/+2 (ignoring stats, magic, etc).

The archer has PBS/RS/WF/WS. He gets two attacks, each at +0/+2 within 30', and at -1/+0 outside of 30'.

Also: The archer only uses one weapon (and one set of GMW ammo) for all his attacks, including the extra shot, while the TWF needs two different weapons. That's an extra magic weapon (not cheap) for the TWF. This is a big plus overall for Rapid Shot (and flurry of blows).

The archer, with a mighty bow, gets his full strength bonus on all his attacks, including the extra shot. The TWF only gets half his strength bonus on his off-hand attack. OTOH, The archer has a cap on his strength bonus while the TWF does not.

TWF (2 feats) isn't even close to Rapid Shot (2 feats, except that you actually get something from the first one) in combat effectiveness, even ignoring the other factors (archers get full attacks more often, can attack very effectively at range, etc.).

 

[Endur]

Houserule: GMW only affects one arrow

As a house rule, GMW affecting only one arrow seems like a reasonable compromise. The result will mean that archers have to start buying magic arrows again.

Which is not necessarily bad.

I don't think any of the archers in my current campaign have ever bought a magic arrow. They all rely upon GMW for arrows.

And this makes a class like the Arcane Archer much more prestigious (since every arrow they fire is magical).

Tom