I'm annoyed at archers.

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

In that case, he figured in two GMW spells for the archer and only one for the greatsword fighter.

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.

That's quite true but it also reveals something of the nature of the complaint. If the melee fighter got Stoneskin, Empowered Bull's Strength, and Haste every fight and the archer got no buffs, we'd be hearing about how useless archers are in comparison to the melee combat gods. So, if the practice of the party is to buff the archer until he glows like a Christmas tree on the detect magic radar and toss the occasional bone to the melee fighter, you can equally expect that the archer is going to shine more in combat. The party wizard and cleric didn't just spend a half dozen spells for nothing.

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.)

Of course, if the fighter were willing to rely on buffs, he could avoid spending 16k on those gauntlets and get an empowered extended bull's strength (5th level) every evening which would often be better than the belt. When the sorceror is able to do a double empowered bull's strength spell, it will be dramatically better.

Your group sounds like they're pretty canny players and know what they're doing. They obviously use their magic to help each character succeed in their role. (Endurance makes the melee fighter much more resilient and more able to stop villains from getting to the archer). If it works that's no reason to be surprised. However, it's also no reason to suppose that the roles chosen for the various members of the group (the archer deals damage and the melee fighter primarily sucks up the hits is what it sounds like) are the only roles the system makes possible to choose.

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

I can see your point and don't think it would break the game to eliminate bow/arrow enhancement stacking. However, I don't think it's necessary either.

 

[WizarDru]

Thanks, Zad. I was hoping you'd run the numbers. This shows me what I wanted to see, in general numbers. It goes a long way to reassuring me that, under the core system with relatively few modifications, the archers are not unbalanced with the pure melee fighter, overall.

Now, since I'm Zad's DM, he's got a vested interest, but that's not really the issue. I also know that if Zad thought they were truly unbalanced, he'd be the first to point it out. We have rules discussions over various things constantly.

My main goal is to never penalize my players for using the system correctly, unless the system specifically reveals itself to be broken. My goal is that every character have opportunities to showcase their particular abilities, and have a chance to shine. My concern was that archery was getting in the way of that. Now I realize that there are ways to tweak the archer here to much greater effectiveness. In point of fact, you can ask Rackhir about his FTR/BRB/OOBI, a marvel of archer efficiency (and remade a second time in a different game, I believe).

This reinforces my belief that D&D 3E is one of the best RPGs I've been lucky enough to play in my 22+ years of gaming.

 

[Zad]

I was a little rushed finishing the comparison as I was heading out the door from work. I'll try to clean it up monday. However I'd have the night to think about it. And this is what I realized

1. The archer does more damage
2. This is offset somewhat by power attack. You cannot make any meaningful comparison between the two without including power attack in the comparison.
3. In exchange for a little less damage the swordsman

• Threatens hexes
• Gets attacks of opportunity (hence does more damage)
• Can sunder/trip/etc
• Can cleave
• Can subdue

That, people, is called balance.

You can argue that a given prestige class is unbalanced. You can argue that some bizzare feat chain is unbalanced. But this comparison has convinced me that the basics of archery damage IS balanced against melee damage.

And you can bet your bippy I'm gonna repost this every time this argument comes up again (i.e. every three weeks)

 

[Celebrim]

We've had this arguement before, and I doubt we are going to fix anything. Sure, there are problems with archers, but I don't think that the problems nearly counter balance the advantages in range, extra attacks, extra attacks when moving, stacked enhancement bonuses, and superior selection of (broken) prestige classes. For every restriction on archery there is a corresponding feat/item/spell that more than elimenates the problem.

I think D&D has reached the point where the ultimate party consists of a balanced variaty of twinked out archery characters. A party of 6 archer twinks of various flavors (elven cleric, order of the bow initiates, arcane archers, peerless archers, fighter/thieves with archery feat chains, etc.) could dish out nearly 1000 damage per round at everything in sight by the time they reach the upper levels. There is nothing in the game that can survive that - not even close. Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it. Sure, maybe I could stick to nothing but Kraken's ambushing the players at close range in order to punish them for being so powerful, but that is going to get really silly after a while.

 

[James McMurray]

Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it

While making pincushions out of their friend as well, considering that grappled people have a 50/50 chnce of being the target of a ranged attack.

 

[bret]

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.

I disagree.

Because the magical bow doesn't penetrate DR, as a Wizard or Sorcerer I'm more likely to use GMW on arrows. I might split the arrows between multiple people as well.

I'll give the fighter a Dex boost if they aren't already maxed out. The Strength is usually already enhanced by an item. There are other buff spells as well, Haste will often go to the fighter that is playing interceptor on any unfriendly that might attack me. Funny how that works.

When I play an arcane caster, whom I use buff spells on depends partly on what the other characters are and what items they have. It also can be affected by how much of a team player they are and the viewpoint of the particular character I'm running.

One thing is pretty constant. Those that protect my mage have a much better chance of getting the buff spells than those who allow critters to get into melee with my mage. I really like people with reach weapons.

 

[WizarDru]

I think D&D has reached the point where the ultimate party consists of a balanced variaty of twinked out archery characters. A party of 6 archer twinks of various flavors (elven cleric, order of the bow initiates, arcane archers, peerless archers, fighter/thieves with archery feat chains, etc.) could dish out nearly 1000 damage per round at everything in sight by the time they reach the upper levels. There is nothing in the game that can survive that - not even close. Even if it manages to win initiative vs. the whole party, by the time it grabs on to one of them and makes it stick, the rest are going to make a pin cushion of it. Sure, maybe I could stick to nothing but Kraken's ambushing the players at close range in order to punish them for being so powerful, but that is going to get really silly after a while.

So it appears that what you're actually saying is that the core archer is just fine, but select feats, items, spells, and prestige classes from non-core material breaks that balance, correct? That, to me, is an entirely different problem. I personally think classes like the OoBI and others are more of the problem, not the actual archery rules, based on the discussion seen here.

 

[Pax]

Monsters with low to no inteligence are just as easy, if not easier to justify a fight. "the pack of ____ run twords you, hunger in their eyes." Do not presume to tell me what the percentage of encounters should be for inteligent and non-inteligent for my campaign. If you don't know that this changes from campaign to campaign, you have a larger problem.

Most animals, or similar-intelligence "monsters", won't atytack a party of armed (demi)humans. Just like, in real life, most of the time wolves do NOT attack people on sight.

They'd have to be desperately hungry, and even then ... that unarmed farmer (Commoner (2) or (3)) and his family are much better targets than armed and armored PCs.

IOW, no, "the pack of ____ run twords you, hunger in their eyes" just doesn't cut it as a well-reasoned encounter. That is "menagerie of new and more exciting monsters" in action ...

I don't see you point any way, since you state that inteligent foes should be a minority of the encounters seen.

A significant minority -- and frankly, a majority of COMBAT encounters.

I hope you don't believe combat reflexes should be included in every inteligent creature encounter, as that would get repeditive.

I'm not even sure why you're obsessed with combat reflexes, anyway. even with it, a given characetr (PC or NPC) can only AoO the same enemy once per round, no matter how many times they trigger it.

So this discussion of trick inteligent creatures isn't the most helpful. Ditto spell casters. If wanted to make encounters screw archers, I easily could. I want to find times when the melee has advantage and isn't simply meat to be ground up.

Yet you specificaly deny any and all scenarios presented to you which do JUST that.

Parked in a featureless, terrainless, obstacle-less arena, of bloody course archery is superior to melee.

In practise, however, circumstances are not normally so favorable to ranged combatants in SMALL-group encounters. Especially not in the (IME) typical scenario, where the PC's are outnumbered, often 4 or even 5 to 1 ... !!

More tatics for the minority.

Not even a large perchent of those will take exotic weapons. Mounted characters are something, however. Most mounts I can think of, unless you are taking about dragons, don't have reach, the rider does. Ok, a minor point. But the tatic is shut down by a tumble check, DC15, which isn't that hard to get.

Then armor spikes and a reach weapon. Lizardfolk with longspears ... and their bite.

Big enemies, like Ogres. Maybe even ... ogres with OGRE-scale longspears (reach ON TOP of reach!!).

The ready action trick is good. This is the first tatic I can remember in this thread that really socks it to archers. Ok, that's good. Now how often can I use it? First, requires inteligent foes, the minority. Next, you need haste, which should be a minority of inteligent encounters.

Or expert tactician, and deny the archer their dex bonus to AC (a blinkspell, or Ring of Blinking, would do this nicely).

Then, the melee man must get to the archer, which my involve AoOs.

What's worse, an AO or two, or a few rounds of furhter Full Attack actions from the archer(s) ... ?

Finally, your melee man is using one attack a round when he has at least 2.

Nope. The first round, the melee NPC uses a partial charge (1 attack), then a ready action.

Every round after that, unless the archer can out-distance or grossly out-maneuver the melee NPC, he FULL ATTACKS, and then readies again.

A fellow PC meleer should be able to make mince meat of him as he widdles me down, or better a fellow archer. On top of all that, I can avoid most attacks by double moving away, and the melee machine may not even be able to charge me. 1 for 1 isn't always the best trade for NPCs, especially if they are using up a decent level spell.

Ii you double-move, you don't attack -- and the melee fellow gets his AoO against you (for leaving the threatened area, and doing more than a single move ... sucks to be the archer). Then, normal charge (up to double movement) and attack, then ready again. Presuming the odds are at least 1:1 (NPC to PC), the melee PC's may be too damned BUSY to help the archer PC.

How is it harder for the archer to make that exact same manuver and still have the advantage of shooting the enemy from the door rather than being forced to charge him? You have shown only that archery can be used against archery, and it is STILL in the minority of inteligent creature combats.

As for the orc behind the wall trick: simple ... right inside the door, the orc has a melee FRIEND. The archer moves to avoid the wall, teh archer takes readied attacks form the melee orc. If the archer stays there, s/he sucks full attacks and AoO's from said melee orc.

Melee PC's, OTOH, are often designed to be able to TAKE that sort of thing,a nd deal with it quite happily (i.e., maneuver to put the melee orc in the archer-orc's LOS, gettign cover and in-melee penalties into play in the PC's -favor- ... until the melee orc drops, ofc).

Goblins, orcs, kobolds, gnolls and hobgoblins all use the same concept.

Um, do your enemies simply come out with UPC barcodes on them, waiting for the next PC group to happen by and slaughter them?

STORY, man. MOTIVATION. One group of goblins is NOT the same as a group of gnolls. Where are they, why are they there, and so on.

I was making the point that fighting the same thing as you go up in level can get boring, especially if concept is a horde of weak creatures with a few leaders.

Yep, sounding more and more like "menagerie of exotic creatures" to me. Are your encounters arrayed the same as the "monsters by CR" list in the back of the MM?

That isn't the point here. You were saying that goblin (weak) creatures should be more common than powerful (dragon) so the fact that there are a lot of melee creatures is irrelevant, because weak creatures can be advanced and attack using massed archery.

Actually, goblins would have numbers enough to use combined-arms tactics. Maybe 20% to 25% of their number in the archers-and-spellcasters department, the rest in the up-close-and-personal department.

This has a problem: you are saying use archery which seems to say that it is good.

Using archery against the PC's changes the tactics in use. Direct archery fire against enemy ranged units, while your toe-to-toe fighters close with their counterparts. That's pretty much the most standard of the ultra-basic tactics.

That is my point, it is always good to be on the side with the archer except a rare extreem like high wind.

High wind is not as rare as you seem to think it is. A gusty, windy day -- suitable for good kite flying -- is in some places the NORM, and it screws royally with archery.

I also like to use different creatures, and there are more melee monsters to choose from. On top of that, you agreed that inteligent creatures should be in the minority of encounters.

SIGNIFICANT minority. As in, 40% or more. Undead should fill that out a bit (and skeletons can nearly ignore archers!).

On a side note, calling an argument sundry,

"Sundry" means "various":

from the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:
Main Entry: 1sun·dry
Pronunciation: 's&n-drE
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, different for each, from Old English syndrig, from sundor apart -- more at SUNDER
Date: 13th century
: MISCELLANEOUS, VARIOUS <sundry articles>

statement such as "I'm sorry, but I have to ask -- have you grown out of ....",

An honest question; IME, most (if not all) GM's go through that hase. I did, all my friends did; most of us grew out of that phase, some of us never did. I don't think you'd fit into the former group ... you seem more and more to fit with the latter.

and 'My you have a well-trained "selective comprehension" skill, don't you?'

You DO seem to have that skill with a large number of ranks; you've taken part of some statements, misconstrued otehrs entirely, discounted perfectly reasonable answers ... IOW, you have displayed a well-developed ability to apply selective comprehension. I merely observed that fact.

only show your lack of etiquite and you are only here for demeaning others. I don't think they add anything, and take focus away from the discussion.

Only here for demeaning others? No; I'm here to engage in debate on the rules of the d20 system. I only demean those who indicate, in various ways, they rather -deserve- it; you have, in this thread. And you caught all of ONE disrespectful comment (while taking needless offense at another, honest question).

One might ask why you are online at all, if you are that thin-skinned ... ?

 

[Celebrim]

"While making pincushions out of their friend as well, considering that grappled people have a 50/50 chnce of being the target of a ranged attack."

Well, barring a quote otherwise I'm not aware of, I guess as a DM I'm within my rights to assign an equal chance of hitting a gargantuan (or colossal or whatever) creature and the medium sized creature that he has buried beneath his tentacles, but I think my players might rightfully think that I'm being more than a little unfair if I did so. Such a rule makes a bit of sence if two medium sized creatures are rolling around on the ground, but as you are using it, it is just a kludge to fix a different problem.

WizardDru: Well, I'm saying at least two things. First, I'm saying that multishot and order of the bow initiate are highly broken, and peerless archers and deepwoods archers are slightly broken, and that in combination all these broken things added to what was already a powerful concept (an archer) make for some serious problems.
Secondly, I'm saying that even without the clearly balance wrecking things above, that the archer concept is just a little too optimal. Rapid shot is one of the best feats in the game, and you have to ask yourself, why does D&D persist in allowing missile attacks (with a bow) to be done more often than melee attacks, given the ubsurdity of such a thing and the fact that no other system allows that. Quite the contrary, GURPS for example makes it almost impossible to attack as often with a bow as you may with a balanced melee weapon. Don't you think if you are going to be drawing an arrow, knocking it to a bow, drawing the bow, taking aim and firing, that a melee fighter is going to get quite a few good swings in on you in that time? AoO go a little ways to solve this problem, but with 5' steps they are quite easily avoided, and the melee fighter is forced to do some quite complex meta-gaming (as is being discussed here) to get around the weaknesses in the rules and simply get the attacks he clearly deserves. I defy anyone, know matter how good they are with the bow, to draw knock and comfortably fire a longbow while I'm taking swings at them with a baseball bat or katana. Yet, the archer is under no particular penalty to hit when so engaged. Then on top of that, the enhancement bonuses of arrows and bows stack, allowing archers to have comparitively higher BAB's. And on top of that, the standard weapon feats stack with the archery feat chains, so that you can have both accurate shot AND weapon focus which only increases the lead the archer has. Why isn't thier an accurate blow feat? Why isn't thier a rapid attack feat? Isn't it because such feats would be clearly too good? Then why do we assume archers need such extra feats? Is it because a ranged weapon is so useless?

I'm not saying rapid shot needs to be done away with, only that maybe the penalties for being an archer in base to base contact with a melee attacker maybe aren't large enough.

As a DM I find that a few good archers is the cure for any number of ills. Flying monsters? No problem, just keep your distance. Monsters with gaze attacks? No problem, just keep your distance. Any monster with a dangerous attack? No problem, just keep your distance. Spell casters? No problem, just ready your weapon. Difficult terrain or barriers? No problem, I wanted to keep my distance anyway. Monsters with missile weapons of thier own? Yikes! Scary, but no better solution than a better missile weapon of your own. There is no end of tactical problems that I've tried to throw at parties that was solved simply by filling the threat full of arrows (often in the first round or two). It gets to be pretty uncinematic and anticlimatic.

Yes, there are a few counters to archers that when they work control the problem fairly well, but why should I make every encounter one that cripples the archer? What fun is that for me or the archer? And if I don't make encounters designed to cripple the archers, I'm pretty certain that in most cases the collective archery fire of the party is going to make it a non-event in a hurry - the more so if the party were to ever decide to twink out.

I'm not saying the sky is falling or anything, just thinking that maybe the -4 'into melee' penalty should applied when the target is threatening the archer and not just an ally of something like that (that and certain prestige classes were not good ideas).

 

[jgbrowning]

Best idea is don't let your players twink out. Yah, i know, it must be the annoying DM in me.

secondly, you can just say that any archer that was the target of a melee attack last round can only get one shot off this round. helps get rid of all the silliness cele discribed.. again, that's just the annoying DM in me.

joe b.