I'm annoyed at archers.

[Hypersmurf]

Lastly: Haste isn't the only means to gain additional partial actions. A Ring of Blinking and the Expert Tatician feat can do likewise (actually, the feat and -any- means of denying the Archer their Dexterity bonus to AC).

Check your Expert Tactitian revision (Song and Silence, I believe).

An extra melee attack - no longer an extra partial action - would not allow you to do any readying.

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

Check your Expert Tactitian revision (Song and Silence, I believe).

An extra melee attack - no longer an extra partial action - would not allow you to do any readying.

-Hyp.

Oh, now that's (IMO) just an absolutely silly change for them to have made.

That's where I'dmake a GM call -- the extra action from the Expert Tactician would be a full partial action, but only applicable against the enemy whose DEX bonus to AC was denied.

After all, movement and countermovement is what tactics are ABOUT ... not how many times you can swing at them. 8P

 

[Dinkeldog]

Oh, now that's (IMO) just an absolutely silly change for them to have made.

That's where I'dmake a GM call -- the extra action from the Expert Tactician would be a full partial action, but only applicable against the enemy whose DEX bonus to AC was denied.

After all, movement and countermovement is what tactics are ABOUT ... not how many times you can swing at them. 8P

Expert Tactician is already way overpowered. That's why they cut it down.

 

[Petrosian]

As for spells -- if we use a weapon-and-shield, or two-handed-weapon, type of melee grunt ... the Archer has GMW on his bow, and GMW on his arrows. Two spells to match would be haste on teh grunt, and GMW on his (single) weapon.

Alternately, if you want Haste/GMW/GMW for the archer, then, we go Haste/GMW/GMW on a TWF melee grunt, so the number of attacks aren't guaranteed to fall in favor of the archer.

Is that how it works in your campaign play?

Does your spellcaster(s) decide who to throw this and how to buff so-n-so based on the premise of "i must give each character the same number of levels of spells"?

Thats never how it works in my games. Guys get GMW, if available, based on benefit. if the mage has the spells, they give the archers two and the melee guy one, because thats how they benefit. Typically, they throw 1 GMW for ammo and its divided among the archers based on need. So its more like the archer got 1/3 of a third level spell if they bothered to count levels.

Then, when it comes to haste, they give them out again according to need and benefit. If one guy has a problem that NEEDS haste, like lower Ac or like very slow movement which will impeed his full attack chances, he usually gets the haste priority. After that, the typical determining factor is benefit, which boils down to damage done. Frankly, all the fighters weigh in after the mages here. A second full spell is worth more than an extra swing.

In truth tho, this has not been the case for a while.

The haste comes from mass haste now.

The GMWs are extended spells cast the night before which last 24 hours with the spell slots regained in the morning.

So the net result is everyone has a GMW if they use weaponsand there are GMWed arrows passed around (i think my gang divvies 100 arrows nightly) and haste is done at the point of combat.

Regardless, i do not think i have ever heard even the hint that a spellcasting decision was based on "must spread even levels of spells per person" or anything like that.

Since one of the points in this comparison is the very fact that GMW stacks for bow/arrow and the "even spells" is not a common practice, at least as far as I know, I think the notion of providing the melee guy with some other spell kind of misses the point.

YMMV and clearly does, particularly if in your games spells are provided to PCs by PCs based on "equitable levels" instead of other concerns.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

And, I also think that in general people have been too generous in creating feats and special powers for missile weapons specifically which are both additive with general weapon feats and above what would be considered appropriate for a general weapon feat/power.

OK, I follow your argument (sword vs. bow rather than sword vs. sword) -- and in that case I agree with you.

I think the quote above, though, goes to the heart of the problem. I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.

But I have yet to see an archery prestige class that I didn't consider broken, and the majority of 3rd party products (heck, even the WOTC splatbooks) have a lot of wonky abilities that screw up game balance.

You're dead on. In previous editions, the rules set was so (comparitively) imprecise that house rules were the source of balance problems (or solutions). Now, we've got a tighter rules set, but one that is easy to throw off kilter with what appear to be good additions (because someone published them), but that aren't necessarily any more good or bad than the house rules of the past.

Which is why, IMC, I restrict the rules set to the core books, and approve selective individual additions (feats, spells, PrCs) rather than entire sources. Keeps balance in hand that way.

 

[IceBear]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Pressing the Attack feat (from Dragonstar and some other sources) is an excellent feat for dealing with archers and spellcasters. You get to take an extra 5ft step whenever someone in your threat range takes a 5ft step (once per round) immediately. Thus, if the archer takes a 5ft step back to avoid the AoO and get the full attack, you get to move up when he moves back so you still get the AoO, and then on your round you get the Full Attack of your own. Thus, the melee fighter will end up with an extra attack per round over the archer.

IceBear

 

[Lela]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Pressing the Attack feat (from Dragonstar and some other sources) is an excellent feat for dealing with archers and spellcasters. You get to take an extra 5ft step whenever someone in your threat range takes a 5ft step (once per round) immediately. Thus, if the archer takes a 5ft step back to avoid the AoO and get the full attack, you get to move up when he moves back so you still get the AoO, and then on your round you get the Full Attack of your own. Thus, the melee fighter will end up with an extra attack per round over the archer.

IceBear

A free 5-foot step every round? Wow. I hope that's all the feat does, cause that already smacks spell-casters. Which was likely what it was intended for.

 

[IceBear]

That's all it does. Dragonstar is more missle weapon orientated than regular D&D, so this was likely added to help melee characters.. All it does it let you take a 5ft step when an opponent takes one. When I said "free" I meant like the following:

Melee: Charges archer and attacks
Archer: 5ft step back to attack

Normally, because you moved, you aren't entitled to a 5ft step, but the feat overrides this, so....

Melee: Charges archer and attacks
Archer: 5ft Step back
Melee: 5ft step forward
Melee: AoO
Archer: Attacks.

Spellcasters could cast defensively to get around this, or stay out of melee combat

IceBear

 

[Petrosian]

I think the quote above, though, goes to the heart of the problem. I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.

Actually most of my examples tens to use only those.

Archery uses Point blank shot and rapid fire and precise shot.
Both use focus and spec for their weapon.
GMW spell (with extend) is there to provide the enhancement bonuses to sword, bow and arrows to avoid typical "weapons availability issues" for all.

The only thing i commonly throw in from any other source, is the CHAIN feat from WOTC's tome and blood, which applies to GMW and removes the ubiquitous discussion of "how many GMWs can get passed around" which of course will vary between party to party by composition and circumstance.

So, while other may like "many shot" from this, and bowman of the gods from third party product so-n-so and improved abundant cheese from third party "balanced games" as their examples... mine does not rely on such.

The imbalance i perceieve, in play and in analysis, stems from the double enhancement stacking and is exacerbated by low penalty for the rapid shot feats use to gain an extra attackextra attack. That is all core rules material.

So, while examples using the prestige class of the moment and third party feats from hell are favored by some, the fact that the Gm can so "no" to those "obvious cases" does not lead to the conclusion that these are the only problem. At least, not for me.

 

[Pax]

Is that how it works in your campaign play?

Does your spellcaster(s) decide who to throw this and how to buff so-n-so based on the premise of "i must give each character the same number of levels of spells"?

PErhaps you have the tactic I posted confused with a "comparison of fighter to archer" -- I've posted a tactic for NPC enemies to use *against* the PC archer(s) ... at which point, some parity in spells used IS not only fair, but the correct way to examine the tactic.

Thats never how it works in my games. Guys get GMW, if available, based on benefit. if the mage has the spells, they give the archers two and the melee guy one, because thats how they benefit. Typically, they throw 1 GMW for ammo and its divided among the archers based on need. So its more like the archer got 1/3 of a third level spell if they bothered to count levels.

And that'd be fine, if the Archer and the Melee Grunt were on the same side, fighting a common foe -- IOW, if both were in the same party. My example tactic isn't even close to that.

As well, the people I game with tend to spread spells around in a way to make the maximum number of PLAYERS have fun. If that means less than absolute-optimal damage-dealing efficiency ... so be it.