I'm annoyed at archers.

[Zad]

Wizardru wisely suggested a comparison on equal footing. So I tried it

Note: this is probably riddled with math errors and there are optimizations that could be done to both characters.


Let's ponder a pair of 28 point buy characters. One archer, one greatsword fighter. Perhaps we can add a two-weapon fighter later. Both are human fighters and will remain so during their career so as to facilitate a fair comparison. I will equip them very modestly as they level up, giving only the most basic weapons so as to simplify the comparison. No prestige classes, core rules basically. These characters are not optimized or tweaked so they could be better, but at least they're on equal footing.

Starting stats:

GreatswordGuy
STR 18, DEX 10, CON 16

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 18, CON 14

(Int, wis, and cha will be 8 for both)


At level 5
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 19, DEX 10, CON 16. Avg hp = 27.5+15=42.5

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great Cleave

With his +1 greatsword he is +11 to hit and 2d6+7 (avg. 14) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +6 to hit, and 2d6+12 (avg. 19) damage via power attack.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 19, CON 14 Avg hp = 27.5+10=37.5

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative

With his +1 mighty composite longbow (considerably more expensive than the greatsword) the archer is +11 to hit and 1d8+2 (avg 6.5) damage. Inside 30 feet the archer is +12 to hit, and 1d8+5 damage (avg 9.5). With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +10/+10 at 1d8+6 dmg (avg 10.5 ea, 21 combined).

Analysis: Looks about even to me. If we assign "favorable" conditions to each character, the swordsman will do 19 points on a power-attacked hit, and may cleave. The archer will do 21 points. The swordsman can also respond to attacks of opportuntity that the archer cannot, and the swordsman can move and do his damage, so they are slight points in favor of the swordsman.

At level 10
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 20, DEX 10, CON 16. Avg hp = 55+30=85

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +2 greatsword he is +18/+13 to hit and 2d6+9 (avg. 16, total 32) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +8/+3 to hit, and 2d6+19 (avg. 26, total 52) damage via power attack. A bit extreme for most cases tho.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 20, CON 14 Avg hp = 55+20=75

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +2 mighty composite longbow and +2 arrows (assuming the availability of greater magic weapon, which is reasonable at this level) the archer is +20/+15 to hit and 1d8+5 (avg 9.5, total 19) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +18/+18/+13 at 1d8+9 dmg (avg 13.5 ea, 40.5 combined).

Analysis: The conclusion becomes harder now but the archer is showing slightly more damage. They are at about the same to hit bonus without power attack. On the other hand with power attack, the swordsman looses accuracy but can pull closer in damage. I'd say at this level, we're starting to see a gap open in damage but there are mitigating factors.


At level 15
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 21, DEX 10, CON 16. Avg hp = 82.5+45=127.5

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +4 greatsword he is +23/+18/+13 to hit and 2d6+11 (avg. 18, total 54) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +8/+3/-2 to hit, and 2d6+26 (avg. 33, total 99) damage via power attack. A bit extreme for most cases tho. At this point however he can expect to be using power attack more regularly.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 21, CON 14 Avg hp = 82.5+30=112.5

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +4 mighty composite longbow and +5 arrows (assuming the availability of greater magic weapon, which is reasonable at this level) the archer is +28/+23/+18 to hit and 1d8+11 (avg 15.5, total 46.5) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +26/+26/+22/+16 at 1d8+14 dmg (avg 18.5 ea, 74 combined).

Analysis: The archer has a more distinct lead now. He can be prety sure of doing his 74, while the swordsman will average 54 at lower accuracy. This is a pretty sizable damage gap. However the swordsman can still take AOO's and threaten hexes however and that's hard to account for in the numbers, and can do a good bit more damage with power attack. Even a 5 point shift means a 15 point damage change. The swordsman has the flexibility of doing more damage to low AC targets, while the archer's bonus is wasted. The key difference seems to be the stacking of magical bows and arrows.

As an aside you now have the solid edge in hp for the swordsman. They will have about the same AC I believe. The archer either has to give up dex bonus and wear heavy armor, or wear light armor. Either case will make their AC's converge.

Conclusion here is that the archer is doing more damage, but the swordsman is more flexible and a different battlefield presence, akin to the difference between a tank and a piece of artillery. The swordsman will have an edge defensively, which helps compensate for the lower damage. The swordsman also has twice the crit range of the archer, and this will raise his damage accordingly (Swordsman crits on a 17-20 vs archer on a 19-20) but this would be offset slightly by the higher crit multiplier on the bow.

Again these characters are minimally equipped. If a simple item like a stat bonus item is introduced, it allows the archer to simply hit more (assuming dex boosted) whereas the melee fighter gains more damage and hit bonus. A +2 to damage per swing for the swordsman closes the gap significantly. The archer could take a strength item and increase the pull on the bow however so this hardly makes a huge difference. I think this point is key to consider and I may revise the analysis later to include the effect of a +4 strength item at this level.



At level 18
=============================================
GreatswordGuy
STR 22, DEX 10, CON 16. Avg hp = 153

Feats: Power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), weapon spec (greatsword), Cleave, Combat reflexes, Great cleave, Improved critical, Improved initative, Dodge, Iron will, Great Fortitude <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now. I'd love expertise for this guy but he's too dumb.>

With his +5 greatsword he is +30/+25/+20/+15 to hit and 2d6+13 (avg. 20, total 80) damage. If he feels he has an easy hit, he can go as far as +12/+7/+2/-3 to hit, and 2d6+31 (avg. 38, total 152) damage via power attack. Can't hit the broad side of a barn of course. However we know at this point however he can expect to be using power attack more regularly.

ArcherGuy
STR 14, DEX 22, CON 14 Avg hp = 135

Feats: Weapon Focus (composite longbow) Point blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon specialization (composite longbow), Improved initiative, sharp shooter, etc. <Note that the important feats are all taken at this point and it matters less now>

With his +5 mighty composite longbow and +5 arrows the archer is +35/+30/+25/+20 to hit and 1d8+12 (avg 16.5, total 49.5) damage. With a rapid shot inside 30 feet (the archer's best move) he is +33/+33/+28/+23/+18 at 1d8+15 dmg (avg 19.5 ea, 97.5 combined).

Analysis: The damage gap actually shrunk, since you can't get better than a +5 arrow which the archer had earlier. Also if you throw the strength item into the mix, I think the gap is even smaller.

There's a lot more work that could be done here, but overall I don't think there's the problem that some people are convinced there is.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, to limit the repetitiveness... i wont go into how these tactics work against melee guys, where the troll is taking full attacks, including possible rend, instead of single attacks plus AoO.

Actually they don't work nearly as well against the melee guy for several reasons.

1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18.

2. Since the tripped archer is stuck in melee with the troll/etc (Round 1 partial attack: trip. Round 1 archer stand up, retreat, provoke AoO, tripped again. Round 2 full attack on (prone) archer. Round 2 archer: stand up, retreat, provoke AoO, tripped, rinse lather repeat), the archer is equally vulnerable to rends and other special attacks. Actually, because of the typically lower AC of an archer, archers are actually more vulnerable to these.

3. Melee fighters can attack from prone at -4. If they have the prone attack feat, they may stand up as a free action after the first hit. Archers cannot attack from prone. (A minor difference to be sure but significant at higher levels where a character might have 3 to 6 attacks per round).

4. Most significantly, a troll or other large bad guy pursuing this tactic against a melee fighter loses the possibility of a rend. (Round 1 Troll: Move, partial attack trip. Round 1 Melee: Stand up [MEA] Partial Attack. Round 2 Troll: Full attack--trip, claw, bite. (No rend possible). Round 2 Melee: stand up [MEA], Partial Attack. Rinse Lather repeat).

Suffice it to say that an archer in this situation is significantly worse off than a melee fighter.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Zad, good comparison but I've one quick comment to add about this and a lot of other comparisons I'm seeing. By the 10th level comparison, your method of comparison favors the archer. You're not comparing an archer on his or her own to a greatsword fighter on his or her own. You're comparing an archer with a 3rd or 4th level buff spell (GMW) cast for him to a greatsword fighter without any outside help.

If you have two characters, all else being equal and one has a 3rd or 4th level buff up and the other doesn't, you would expect the buffed character to be superior not equal.

In order to make the comparison more even, you should give the greatsword fighter either a haste spell (3rd level but short duration) or an empowered Bull's Strength spell (4th level long duration and therefore equivalent to a GMW spell from a cleric). I think that changing the comparison by allowing the Greatsword fighter buffs as well would dramatically change the results.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well, to limit the repetitiveness... i wont go into how these tactics work against melee guys, where the troll is taking full attacks, including possible rend, instead of single attacks plus AoO.

Actually they don't work nearly as well against the melee guy for several reasons.

1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I think you can use str or dex to avoid the trip. Bull rush is a str only resistence though. So yes a mellee fighter is jsut as vulnerable except for the minor feature that he can attack rpone somewhat beter than the archer.(the archer just drops his bow and pulls out a sword)

 

[Petrosian]

"Also if you throw the strength item into the mix, I think the gap is even smaller."

Throwing only strength items in skews the results.

Give the fighter +4 strength gauntlets for 16k and he gains +2 to hit and +3 damage.

Give the Archer +2 Gloves of dex for 4000 and bracers of Archery for 5100 and he gains +3 hit and +1 damage (within 30') and this ignores the +1 to Ac, reflex saves and the like.

******

You highlight the difference in HP, but the difference in saves is significant too.

Dex 10 Con 16 produces for an 18th level fighter fort save of +14 and a reflex save of +6

Dex 22 and Con 14 produces a fort save of +13 and a reflex save of +12.

I would tend to point out that once you move out of combat comparisons and into the realm of overall participation and hp totals, that the difference between a +12 and +6 on reflex saves is not something to just be passed by. The effective difference of a single failed save against a fireball is going to make up and more the HP difference.

 

[Petrosian]

"1. Melee characters typically have over an 18 strength by the time that GMW stacking, etc. comes into play for archers. This makes them significantly harder to trip than archers who don't have any incentive to get an effective strength higher than 18."

IIRC the resisting character can use the higher of his str or dex to resist a trip attack.

 

[Enkhidu]

I'm going to give a short anecdote that will bring this discussion away from the numbers.

For a number of years I was a very active participant in the SCA. Now I'm not about to say that SCA sport combat is a match for what we play out in D&D, but I did carry away a few lessons that have greatly helped me put arguments like this into perspective.

I have always enjoyed being a shieldman in a large scale melee - nothing much made me happier than carrying a huge scutum sized shield and marching directly at the enemy front. I always had a good view of what was going on, and have always liked being in the press.

In large melees like that, the number of enemy troops I personally brought down was never very large. I was never able to walk away from a large battle where I could say 'Wow, I took down over a dozen of those guys!' Instead, I became what I term a "movable wall."

Basically, I would partner up with one or more buddies with a long weapon (like a reach weapon), who would then fight over top of me. My job, instead of 'killing the enemy,' became 'keep this guy alive.'

On the days when my polearmsman and I clicked, we might walk off the field with 2 to 3 dozen 'kills' between us. When I partnered with an combat archer, the number rose higher. Together, we were far more effective than either of us would have been alone.

So what's my point, you ask?

D&D is a team sport. The lizardman barbarian who started out this thread is likely more efficient partnering with the archer and keeping that archer alive than trying to 'dish out the damage.' Judicious use of a defensive posture may not make it any easier for the barbarian to cause massive amounts of hp damage, but without the tank in front of them, archers become far less effective.

So take on for the team - besides, any kill caused by someone your character directly protects is half yours!

 

[Petrosian]

Actually he did figure in the GMW on the greatsword. The reason the fighter did not get a second is it does him no good. Thats one of the points being highlighted... that GMW stacks for archers and does not for melee.

If you want to run comparisons assuming each character gets an identical set of buffs, that is an interesting idea but in as much as it is not what happens in play, it is fairly useless.

i have NEVER seen a mage decide on buffing by dint of "how many levels have i thrown on so and so versus this other guy. They throw the best spells they can and as many as they can afford. its not a case of "do you get GMW or bull strength" its a case of how many can i spare and bull strength is not competing with GMW.

IN PLAY, in my game here is what happens.

The night before, when they are ready for bed, the 12th level sor with extend hands out a number of GMWx (24 hours) and uses his last couple GMW-X on arrows. they then divide the arrows up, most going to the archer. Every fighter type gets one weapon GMWed and they divy up about 100 arrows. i think this burns 6 4th level spells and since he has something like 8 fourth, 6 fifth and 3 sixth this is not really a hardship. The spell slots will be recovered by morning so the loss of spells only really is felt for about a 9 hour period.

He also burns a number of second level buffs... endurance is his spell of choice, iirc, as extended versions as well. The fighter is already in gauntlets +4 for strength so a buff of bs would not help (much, if at all.)

So while for a theoreticcal comparison, mathcing up spell levels of buffing would be interesting, it does not match the way things go in the game. there is no mechanism active in the game to force this parity and the system encourages doubling up on the archer because of the stacking issue.

IF the rules were changed to allow a melee weapon to get two stacking GMWs, then the comparison should include one or two GMW for each, because thats what they would be going for.

i think, overall, this is one of the reasons so many have seemed amenable to changing bow and arrow stacking

Zad, good comparison but I've one quick comment to add about this and a lot of other comparisons I'm seeing. By the 10th level comparison, your method of comparison favors the archer. You're not comparing an archer on his or her own to a greatsword fighter on his or her own. You're comparing an archer with a 3rd or 4th level buff spell (GMW) cast for him to a greatsword fighter without any outside help.

If you have two characters, all else being equal and one has a 3rd or 4th level buff up and the other doesn't, you would expect the buffed character to be superior not equal.

In order to make the comparison more even, you should give the greatsword fighter either a haste spell (3rd level but short duration) or an empowered Bull's Strength spell (4th level long duration and therefore equivalent to a GMW spell from a cleric). I think that changing the comparison by allowing the Greatsword fighter buffs as well would dramatically change the results.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would tend to point out that once you move out of combat comparisons and into the realm of overall participation and hp totals, that the difference between a +12 and +6 on reflex saves is not something to just be passed by. The effective difference of a single failed save against a fireball is going to make up and more the HP difference.

True but location makes a big difference in terms of area effect spells as well. It's much harder to catch a melee fighter in a fireball without also injuring ones' allies than it is to catch the clump of archer and wizard (and possibly cleric) who are staying out of melee.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think you can use str or dex to avoid the trip. Bull rush is a str only resistence though. So yes a mellee fighter is jsut as vulnerable except for the minor feature that he can attack rpone somewhat beter than the archer.(the archer just drops his bow and pulls out a sword)

Mea culpa on the str or dex to resist trip attacks. That's my error. However if the archer chooses to drop his bow and draw a greatsword, he will still be much worse off than the melee fighter for several reasons:

1. The troll or whatever gets an unanswered full attack on him because after standing up and switching weapons, the archer is unable to attack without quickdraw (Stand up [MEA] draw sword [MEA]).

2. The archer most likely lacks the feats and stats to effectively take the troll or whatever on in melee. Assuming that the archer has an 18 strength and a 22 dex after buffs and items, the melee character probably has a 24 strength (since he only needs one attribute buffed) as well as weapon focus and specialization and probably at least 2 effective plusses more on his melee weapon. In this case, the melee fighter has a +6 attack bonus advantage over the archer and a +6 per hit damage bonus advantage over the archer--assuming that they're both wielding the same weapon.