I'm annoyed at archers.

[Pax]

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.

Melee characters also have TWF, which kicks in (at high penalties) without any feats required -- and with little or NO penalty, for Rangers ... still with no feats required. TWF eventually leads to being able to full-attack with (at epic levels) each weapon (eight attacks in total, more with Speed-enhanced weapons).

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

Archers using ranged attacks inside an enemy's threatened zone provoke AoO's, melee fighters typically do not.

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.

Allright, this one I agree with, at least. I've considered making GMW (and MW) affect no more than 5 or 10 projectile weapons, not enough to constitute an entire supply, but enough to let the spellcasters provide for a temporary gap in available magic weaponry for part of an encounter.

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

So use flying monsters. Or INTELLIGENT monsters, with their OWN ranged weapons.

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

And with inelligent (or even many semi-intelligent) foes, if the encounter is within 30 feet, then something WILL rush up to threaten the archer in melee range.

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

I'll take my Fighter (10) / Duellist (10) pre-Epic "Armor Class Munckin" concept up against any Fighter (10) / "Archery PrCl" (10) character any day. The point being, when rollign to hit ... if you have to ask, the answer is "no." And yes, the Fighter/Duellist is 99% a melee character (their high dexterity helps offset the lack of ranged-oriented feats). AC of 80-ish, without a single CUSTOM magic item ... all off-the-shelf.

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.

Tactical failing on the DM's part, and probably alack of viable terrain for the NPC's to use against the ranged fighters. Especially if most of the encounters are occurring at the 30-foot-or-less mark.

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...

Specialty tactics versus melee fighters: get an obstacle that limits their ability to get to you, and rain arrows (etc) on them. One prime example of this is, a wall ... with arrowslits. You know, like the ones around -castles- ... ?

Any weapon which gives a specific advantage on the field of battle, as an inevitable result, will spawn specific counter-tactics. For melee combat, this usually manifests in movement patterns, weapon choices, attack-type choices (disarm, sunder, whatever).

Against ranged combat, it usually involves moving in a way that makes maximum use of available cover and/or concealment, or, answering in kind -- with massed volleys of ranged attacks!

 

[Numion]

Melee characters also have TWF, which kicks in (at high penalties) without any feats required -- and with little or NO penalty, for Rangers ... still with no feats required. TWF eventually leads to being able to full-attack with (at epic levels) each weapon (eight attacks in total, more with Speed-enhanced weapons).

Are you kidding me? What good are those gazillion attacks if you don't hit anything? The bonuses of those attacks, especially iterative ones, will make it pretty hard to hit.

Archers using ranged attacks inside an enemy's threatened zone provoke AoO's, melee fighters typically do not.

Oh yeah. And the AoOs do happen. Most monsters, however, don't have Combat Reflexes. Whats so bad with being hit with one AoO when the "frontline" meleers are pounded by full attacks. I wasn't saying that archers are infinitely better than meleers. happens to them too, but they are considerably more powerful than meleers.

So use flying monsters. Or INTELLIGENT monsters, with their OWN ranged weapons.

Having DMed two 3e campaigns from 1st to 16th level (the second still going at level 22) I have used flying monsters. I've used intelligent monsters. I've used creatures immune to arrows. The net effect still is that at about level 10 and onwards the archers combat capabilities exceed greatly those of meleers.

And with inelligent (or even many semi-intelligent) foes, if the encounter is within 30 feet, then something WILL rush up to threaten the archer in melee range.

Of course, if it's tactically useful. Sometimes they can't rush past the meleers. Usually the flying archers (if they aren't grappled by then) can just fly away with haste action (taking AoO's) and make a full attack.

I'll take my Fighter (10) / Duellist (10) pre-Epic "Armor Class Munckin" concept up against any Fighter (10) / "Archery PrCl" (10) character any day. The point being, when rollign to hit ... if you have to ask, the answer is "no." And yes, the Fighter/Duellist is 99% a melee character (their high dexterity helps offset the lack of ranged-oriented feats). AC of 80-ish, without a single CUSTOM magic item ... all off-the-shelf.

Your point? Why would I allow that crap in my game?

Tactical failing on the DM's part, and probably alack of viable terrain for the NPC's to use against the ranged fighters. Especially if most of the encounters are occurring at the 30-foot-or-less mark.

Well, I don't know. My tactics are pretty sound, and the archers haven't been invincible or anything like that. They've just dealt the majority of damage in combat. And if the monsters we're hiding behind the obstacles, how would they hurt the PCs?

Against ranged combat, it usually involves moving in a way that makes maximum use of available cover and/or concealment, or, answering in kind -- with massed volleys of ranged attacks!

Usually the cover bonuses to AC don't help much. Feats lower it, and the archers attack bonuses are usually more than enough to hit. Using massed ranged attacks is a good idea, and I've used it before. Most of the monsters in DMG are meant for melee combat though.

 

[Skaros]

So, for those of you saying archery has too few drawbacks in D&D.

What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?

If it was guys with guns versus guys with knives, I think we'd have less complaints that the guys with guns are more effective. Archery is certainly less destructive than gunfire, but I'd still rate it far above melee combat in its strategic value.

Given that, what sort of drawbacks would make sense? More definitive and balancing penalties when the archer is drawn into melee....perhaps something to make him consider actually drawing a sword when something closes into combat with them?

Of course, those are the sorts of drawbacks you'd expect spellcasters to have as well, and in both cases the ubiquitous 5' step gets around any drawbacks for the vast majority of situations.

So, nerfing GMW and rapid shot penalty changes aside, are there any good ideas for house rules that fit into the D&D rules in such a way as to effectively penalize arhcers to the extent some of you desire?

-Skaros

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

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.

The reason why I chose 1/500 is because most archers would then buy arrows +3 (since most monsters have DR X/+3). This would cost 18,000 gps for 500, or 36 gp per arrow. If the typical high level archer is firing 5-6 arrows a round, that's 180-216 gp. If a typical battle lasts 4 rounds, that's 720-864 gps a combat. (Which really starts to add up. IMO, 1/200 is still too expensive.)

1/500 is in line with potions and it's also not so expensive that no one would ever use bows. Also, DMs can give magical arrows as treasure without PCs automatically selling them as soon as they got to town. (I have never seen a party actually use magical arrows found as treasure, even with an archer in the party.)
.
.
.
.

Darklone--

but there's always the good old hide behind the tables western movie tactic.

The next time I DM, I'll be sure to equip all of my NPCs with tables. *grin*
.
.
.
.

Skaros--
What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?

Personally, I'm not looking for drastic changes to the game. I think that altering GMW and magic arrow prices should be enough to make archers less of a combat necessity. Instead of actually altering that game mechanics of DnD archery, I'm going to hit PCs where they are vulnerable the most:

Their wallets.

 

[Lela]

Dangit, this shouldn't be in this thread. *Snip*

The dangers of multitasking.

 

[Pax]

Are you kidding me?[/b]

Not in the slightest.

What good are those gazillion attacks if you don't hit anything? The bonuses of those attacks, especially iterative ones, will make it pretty hard to hit.

Presupposing the TWF character uses light weapons (shortswords, say), and presupposing the archer utilises Rapid Shot ... the attacks will be p[enalised (above and beyond iterative issues) -2 for BOTH characters.

And for the additional feats spent on TWF-twinking, the TWF character can eventually have as many as 8 attacks (without magic) during a full attack ...

Is the parity perfect? No. But, neither is it so grossly out of balance as many here would have us believe.

Oh yeah. And the AoOs do happen. Most monsters, however, don't have Combat Reflexes. Whats so bad with being hit with one AoO when the "frontline" meleers are pounded by full attacks. I wasn't saying that archers are infinitely better than meleers. happens to them too, but they are considerably more powerful than meleers.

Again, that presumes the foes are not sentient beings ... say, NPC's with levels ...! An Orc Fighter(4) is, what, CR4? A couple dozen of them would be, what, EL 8 or EL 10 (or close to it) ... ?

Having DMed two 3e campaigns from 1st to 16th level (the second still going at level 22) I have used flying monsters. I've used intelligent monsters. I've used creatures immune to arrows. The net effect still is that at about level 10 and onwards the archers combat capabilities exceed greatly those of meleers.

Then I daresay you have a similar failing to that of the DM of my own first 3E experience: utter lack of terrain effects. Trees and leaves provide concealment, if not cover ... more and more, the further you are form the target (result: closing to melee range rewards the melee characters, while the ranged characters suffer miss %'s ...).

Of course, if it's tactically useful. Sometimes they can't rush past the meleers. Usually the flying archers (if they aren't grappled by then) can just fly away with haste action (taking AoO's) and make a full attack.

It is always tacticallyuseful toe liminate a source of damage. The greater the damage a source is producing, the greater the usefulness of eliminating it. If archers are, as you allege, the best dealers-of-damage, then ignoring the melee characetrs to close with the ranged fighters is the tactic to pursue. Period.

Your point? Why would I allow that crap in my game?

Funny; I did state the Fighter(10)/Duellist(10) is entirely off-the-shelf, with nothing custom to speak of. Frankly the only thing I even need from outside the PHB or DMG, is the Duellist PrC itself (and it's one of the more innocuous PrC's from the splatbooks, really). Yet it demonstrates that, done well, a melee character can run circles around enemies, too.

Heck, for the Duellist, the AC jumps by 8 (vs AoO's) when doing precisely that --- running around the enemy (in their threatened zone).

Well, I don't know. My tactics are pretty sound, and the archers haven't been invincible or anything like that. They've just dealt the majority of damage in combat. And if the monsters we're hiding behind the obstacles, how would they hurt the PCs?

I daresay, your tactics, terrain, circumstances-of-encounter, and choice of opposition probably FAVOR the use of ranged weapons. Heavily, I suspect.

Usually the cover bonuses to AC don't help much. Feats lower it, and the archers attack bonuses are usually more than enough to hit. Using massed ranged attacks is a good idea, and I've used it before. Most of the monsters in DMG are meant for melee combat though.

One feat lowers Cover-gained AC bonusses (Sharpshooter, from S&F), and not by a large amount. 9/10's cover (an Orc crossbowman behind an arrow slit) is harsh. Add in a nice screen of ivy across the wall the 'slit is set in, and you can even get concealment TOO ... without the orc suffering much. Now, it's in the party's best interests to run AROUND that wall (through the doorway, around the end of the ruined wall, whatever the specific encounter circumstances dictate), and close to melee range.

Most of the monsters are melee, perhaps -- if you assume they show up in frequencies proportional to each otehr, IOW, that a goblin is no more common than a dragon.

Goblins, by the way, should not only be more plentiful ... but they advance BY CLASS. Think about it.

 

[Mallik]

How to Fix Archers

It's this simple: use a battlemat and miniatures (or dice/markers of some kind).

This is /necessary/ to enforce the rule that make archers balanced: cover.

In a dungeon and shooting halfway around a corner? shooting through your allies? Etc. there're a million things to think about in a combat situation that you can't do in your head, that effectively reduce archers' power.

Having a 2/4/7/10 cover bonus to AC will seriously make your archer think twice about how great it is to be outside of range.

We gave this a try, and started doing all of our combats on a mat-- archers are still scary if heavily maxed to be scary, but they're not much better than melee combatants, and it's much more likely that they'll be forced into melee this way, to boot.

Try it.

-Ryan

 

[LokiDR]

So, for those of you saying archery has too few drawbacks in D&D.

What sort of drawbacks are you looking for?

If it was guys with guns versus guys with knives, I think we'd have less complaints that the guys with guns are more effective. Archery is certainly less destructive than gunfire, but I'd still rate it far above melee combat in its strategic value.

Given that, what sort of drawbacks would make sense? More definitive and balancing penalties when the archer is drawn into melee....perhaps something to make him consider actually drawing a sword when something closes into combat with them?

Of course, those are the sorts of drawbacks you'd expect spellcasters to have as well, and in both cases the ubiquitous 5' step gets around any drawbacks for the vast majority of situations.

So, nerfing GMW and rapid shot penalty changes aside, are there any good ideas for house rules that fit into the D&D rules in such a way as to effectively penalize arhcers to the extent some of you desire?

-Skaros

The stacking of enhancement on amunition, in general, is a problem for me. I wouldn't mind GMW if the enhancements didn't stack.

The 5 foot problem is also bad. How about a house rule for an extra attack at your lowest attack against any person who doesn't threaten you? A kind of "reckless attacking" that lets you slaughter the weak (in melee at least). This may be a bit much, but I think it might be worth a thought.

Finally, protection from arrows should increase as fast or faster than GMW, at least in the bonus. Since not every one can have it, the ability to immune to most missles should be a interesting tatic. That way, it would have involve melee or more spells and archers could look for other targets or tatics.

 

[LokiDR]

Again, that presumes the foes are not sentient beings ... say, NPC's with levels ...! An Orc Fighter(4) is, what, CR4? A couple dozen of them would be, what, EL 8 or EL 10 (or close to it) ... ?

Not every encounter includes inteligent creatures. Not every inteligent creature takes combat reflexes. You have shown nothing, unless you suggesst making a large perchent of encounters into this sort.

It is always tacticallyuseful toe liminate a source of damage. The greater the damage a source is producing, the greater the usefulness of eliminating it. If archers are, as you allege, the best dealers-of-damage, then ignoring the melee characetrs to close with the ranged fighters is the tactic to pursue. Period.

Use is determined by cost. If the tatic causes you to be surrounded by enemies, take multiple AoOs, and the target can simply step away from you, it doesn't sound that usefull.

One feat lowers Cover-gained AC bonusses (Sharpshooter, from S&F), and not by a large amount. 9/10's cover (an Orc crossbowman behind an arrow slit) is harsh. Add in a nice screen of ivy across the wall the 'slit is set in, and you can even get concealment TOO ... without the orc suffering much.

So, what your are saying is that the archer has a huge advantage, shooting the party untill they can reach him. Why does this show archery isn't more powerful? Could you do this with melee? This does not help your case.

Most of the monsters are melee, perhaps -- if you assume they show up in frequencies proportional to each otehr, IOW, that a goblin is no more common than a dragon.

Goblins, by the way, should not only be more plentiful ... but they advance BY CLASS. Think about it. [/B]

Goblins get old, fast. The concept of the goblin is to attack en-mass, not produce a few powerful goblins to win the battle. Yes, goblins do advance by class, but they are only listed in the MM up a few levels because of the concept of the race. Facing the powerful and strange is more fun than the mundane warmed over, hence the large number of different creatures in the game.

 

[Darklone]

Next time my NPCs will bring tables to the battle!

LOL, yeah, right, I think those things are called tower shields and provide full cover.

As for the argument that the AoO against the archer is not bad... If the monster trips the archer with that AoO, the archer is screwed for that round (nooooo rapid shot orgy). And the 5ft step back doesn't help against 10ft reach monsters.

Ok, the archer will probably tumble backwards with partial haste action and shoot the full volley then... But he still loses one attack at full attack bonus. Not to mention that I got the impression that many guys houseruled tumble, but that's not important here.

I don't know how you handle it... but my PCs don't always surprise the monsters. And monsters that are subject to an archers volleys usually hide in full cover and ready a partial charge at the archer, possibly damaging his weapon.

But well. Some guys here have the impression that archers are too strong and their main argument is their experience. Others have different experiences. This leads me to the conclusion that it's a matter of the DM. As usual.

So use a houserule (hint hint) that fits your group and your problem.

Edit: Sorry, hong. Tables don't stop arrows but provide hardness 10, that's right... But if you don't see your enemy behind the table, you shouldn't forget the 50% concealment? Hmm, can you shoot through a tower shield ? After all, many tables may be tougher than a towershield...