I'm annoyed at archers.

[jmichels`]

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.

Yup, this the problem I am having with the Massive Archer. All of the damage but almost none of the risks. I am considering making bows similar to how they worked in 2E with the Bows giving +hit and the arrows giving +damage. (I am going to let the bow imbue the arrows with Icy Burst or Screaming or whatever though.) I'm really not quite sure why they changed it in the first place because it seemed pretty elegant. The magic of the bow made the shots more accurate but the magic of the arrows did the damage. I haven't run the numbers but it seems like this change wouldn't weaken archers too much.

If, on the off chance an archer is attacked, there is no distinct disadvantage for an archer fighting in melee combat.

I think this makes it even worse. If the monsters get into the back rank to shut down the archer he merely draws a melee weapon. Then he can usually handle himself as well as the frontline grunts. He is by no means a wimpy mage that needs protecting.

 

[Numion]

Re: Grapple and Trip

Grapple is the first thing one of my monsters does when he is within reach of an archer.

People talk about sunder, but sunder is risky: you have to out-roll the archer, then you have to have a magic weapon better than the bow's magic.

Grapple, however, is easy. All you need is a touch attack to hit. Normally, grapples generate AOO's, but the archer is holding a bow, so no AOO for him. Then its an opposed strength + BAB + size check. And while an Archer may have a decent BAB, most archers are not very strong.

Now, if you are worried that your archer is much better than your monster. i.e. a 7th level archer against an Ogre. The Archer's higher BAB may result in the archer winning the grapple against the ogre. Well, in that case, use the Trip special attack. BAB doesn't matter, Trip is based on size + strength. The Ogre should win the Trip and the archer falls on the ground. The Archer won't be able to use his mighty composite longbow while laying on the ground, so he spends a move-equivalent action standing up and doesn't get his full attack this round.

Tom

But you know, with grapple it's game over if there are any rogues or rogue-archers in the field..

 

[Numion]

A few points I've noticed in my games:

1) Archers have Rapid Shot for extra attacks. Meleers have Cleave, which kicks in more rarely.

2) Archers can kick of with full attacks more often (=every round after the surprise, most likely). Meleers may have to move.

3) GMW + stacking of bows and arrows. Eats away some if not most (all actually if we're talking about single-hand weapon meleers) of the damage differences / hit when compared to meleers. To hit is just way higher than with meleers.

4) At higher levels flying is reality in D&D. Easy too. So archers have severe advantage vs. most landbound creatures.

5) AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you.

6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)

7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)

The cumulative effect of points 1-7 is that archers tend cause more damage than meleers in my games. They would cause much more damage than meleers, but in my games arrows don't stack.

I don't really understand all these specialty tactics people come up with vs. archers. Why should we need special tactics vs. them - we don't need special gimmicks vs. meleers. Which actually once more proves that archers have too much going for them...

 

[Saeviomagy]

A few points I've noticed in my games:

1) Archers have Rapid Shot for extra attacks. Meleers have Cleave, which kicks in more rarely.

Agreed. Two-handed meleers probably need a couple more feats - right now they they have almost none which are specific to them.

2) Archers can kick of with full attacks more often (=every round after the surprise, most likely). Meleers may have to move.

Also agreed, although in a 30f engagement range, I'd be amazed if this was actually the case. Once the enemy closes, archers really don't have a benefit over melee characters in this department, apart from rapid shot.

3) GMW + stacking of bows and arrows. Eats away some if not most (all actually if we're talking about single-hand weapon meleers) of the damage differences / hit when compared to meleers. To hit is just way higher than with meleers.

Agreed as well. Although bear in mind that a melee'er could get a +1 burst,shocking, blah blah blah blah weapon, then get it GMW'ed. Both types gain quite a bit from GMW.

4) At higher levels flying is reality in D&D. Easy too. So archers have severe advantage vs. most landbound creatures.

A melee fighter who abstains from ranged combat NEEDS flight, or some way to force his opponent into melee. And of course once he gets flight, he gets into dive attacks, for double damage (everyone say ooooh!)

5) AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you.

True.

6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)

Very true. Hence my wonderment at all these archers able to stay out of melee, and also my wonderment that, in the 2-3 rounds necessary to kill most creatures, the creatures are not managing to kill every non-warrior in the party.

7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)

Melee'ers have far more.

The cumulative effect of points 1-7 is that archers tend cause more damage than meleers in my games. They would cause much more damage than meleers, but in my games arrows don't stack.

I don't really understand all these specialty tactics people come up with vs. archers. Why should we need special tactics vs. them - we don't need special gimmicks vs. meleers. Which actually once more proves that archers have too much going for them...

Entirely untrue. There are special tactics to use versus meleers, and it appears that peoples archers are, quite sensibly, using them. Stay out of reach. Against an archer, the tactic is stay out of line of fire. Anyone with half a brain will do that. You don't need to be a genius to duck when arrows start skittering about, and if you don't do so, you seriously deserve your own private agincourt. It's not a special tactic - it's damn near instinctual.

The key thing is that an archer isn't a team player. He's only pulling off half of his job as a high-ac, high-hitpoint character (if the people lauding them are to be believed). The other half of his job is keeping other group members safe. Most people would be peeved at group members capable of casting CLW not doing so when necessary. In the same breath, they should be cursing those people capable of tanking for not doing so.

 

[LokiDR]

Agreed as well. Although bear in mind that a melee'er could get a +1 burst,shocking, blah blah blah blah weapon, then get it GMW'ed. Both types gain quite a bit from GMW.

What works for the melee and GMW works twice for the archer. The burst, shocking, ect weapon works just as good on bows, better since the enhancement doesn't defeat DR. Then the arrows get the same treatment. Now there's a question of money, but the same can be done for arrows. This just makes the divide worse.

Very true. Hence my wonderment at all these archers able to stay out of melee, and also my wonderment that, in the 2-3 rounds necessary to kill most creatures, the creatures are not managing to kill every non-warrior in the party.

Since we are fundamentally talking just about warriors, melee vs archery, I don't see the relevance. Regardless, the clerics and mages can easily be the most protected characters, using spells. Also, if a monster was stong enough to kill several characters, it is a very tough encounter and not in the norm. Encounters like that don't seem to show too much about the players involved except they are all outmatched.

 

[Darklone]

Entirely untrue. There are special tactics to use versus meleers, and it appears that peoples archers are, quite sensibly, using them. Stay out of reach. Against an archer, the tactic is stay out of line of fire. Anyone with half a brain will do that. You don't need to be a genius to duck when arrows start skittering about, and if you don't do so, you seriously deserve your own private agincourt. It's not a special tactic - it's damn near instinctual.

You know, probably that's the main difference between Petrosians and my campaigns... Not some obscure houserules but:

My monsters don't like to stand around and watch as the archers fire volleys into them

I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I am considering making bows similar to how they worked in 2E with the Bows giving +hit and the arrows giving +damage.

Are you sure about that? 2e rules were so unclear, inconsistent and just plain bad that you shouldn't use them unless you have to. Take a look at some of the 2e stuff that got through without any changes - Harm, Time Stop... need I go on?

I'll be tempted to drag rangers and free Amb/TWF into it.

Why are we talking about TWF at all? A two-handed weapon user can do that better, unless they're a rogue. I haven't seen a good two-handed IMC (maybe we need more skill in that area), but the Ambi/TWF users were even worse.

The two-hander has a roughly equal AC (heavier armor, lower Dex, no shield or the same Animated Shield that the archer uses) and can do craploads of damage, and it's cheaper for him to buy a weapon (he only needs one).

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.

If a creature with 30 ft. of movement gets within 30 ft of the archer, why aren't they partial charging the archer and using improved grab, poison, or whatever nasty tricks they have up their sleeve?

Yes, if the encounter distances are long, archery is a good choice, but encounter distances are not that long in the stereotypical dungeon.

They aren't even that long outdoors, except in deserts and on mountains, of course.

AC isn't much worse than with meleers who don't use shields. more importantly, this is true: AC don't matter if no-one's striking you.

Flying creatures, summoned creatures, burrowed creatures, Dimension Door, etc. Why aren't your archers seeing these things?

6) In my experience combats happen inside the 30ft kill zone quite often. (more damage + to hit)

= archer in melee.

7) Archers have some pretty funky PrCs going for them. (Zen archery + ootbi)

If they're overpowered, don't use them.

 

[hong]

I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic.

"Hiding behind the table won't help you. It'll only stop 10 points!" -- paraphrased from Living Steel

 

[WizarDru]

My monsters don't like to stand around and watch as the archers fire volleys into them

I have to admit that everything but full cover doesn't help much against D&D archers,... but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic.

And how are things like Steel Predators, Twig Blights, Manticores, Griffons and a host of other creatures to do that, exactly? As often as not, when caught, they can either choose to turn and run, and hope they won't be gunned down before they get away or they can try and close the gap and stop the damage at it's source.

I'm not looking for archers to suddenly become defanged...they SHOULD be better in some situations, perhaps many. But there are situations where they shouldn't be, but in 3E, they really aren't penalized much at all, such as melee. At higher levels, this becomes more apparent, not less. I don't want to thrust my players into a box environment every combat, with anti-archer tactics engaged at every moment. I just begin to become concerned that I should have to even consider it.

How about this: can we use a standard character template, such as one of the iconics, or better yet, a 28-pt. buy character, and then compare their actual performance values at several levels?

For example: Use Regdar's stats at 1st, 5th, 10, 15th levels and see how he stacks up using a melee, say Greatsword feat chain and equipment versus a archery feat chain? Or, if the differing focus on DX vs. ST would not work, a 28 point buy elf for archery versus a 28-pt buy half-orc, dwarf or human, perhaps. In all cases, I'm mostly looking at a pure fighter selection...no PrCs, pure core item selection, with base wealth level assumptions per the DMG.

Perhaps that would allow us to do a reasonable comparison of their respective talents towards balance. I know that everyone can come up with situations where each would excel, but what if we decided to run them against a few set encounter designs, such as:

• Melee encounter, PCs suprise evil humanoids (kobolds, ogres, girallons, etc.)
• Distance enounter in woods (100' distance) Intelligent enemies
• Corridor encounter 5' wide, single file
• Aerial battle atop Nightfang Spire, all combatants have fly spell active
• And so forth...

The idea would be to present a qualitative comparison with everyone agreeing to the assumptions. A lot of what fuels this debate is based on differing campaigns, with different rules and allowances for wealth, magic item availability, house rules and prestige classes/feats/spell availability.

Thoughts?

 

[Malin Genie]

I like the idea of preventing GMW from affecting multiple arrows - but I've always thought 1/50 of the item price was too much to pay for magical arrows.

Maybe 1/200 though, rather than 1/500 - but the exact number can be tweaked.

Good idea anyway.