I'm annoyed at archers.

[Grog]

1. The archer does more damage

Agreed, at least unless the meele character can come up with enough Strength to offset the stacking bow+arrow damage the archer gets. But the archer will still do more damage in most cases simply because the meele character has to close in the first round.

2. This is offset somewhat by power attack. You cannot make any meaningful comparison between the two without including power attack in the comparison.

Power attack isn't that useful because it automatically applies to all your attacks. So while you get more damage out of your first attack or two, there's a good chance it'll make you miss your final attack, and you're probably going to end up losing more damage from that than you gain from the power attack.

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.

Let's look at that list:

Threatens hexes - Sure, it's nice, but how useful is it really? Casting on the defensive is pretty easy for spellcasters to do. He can set up flanking for the party rogue to get sneak attacks, but that's really a benefit to the rogue, not the meele fighter.

Gets attacks of opportunity - Again, it's nice, but in most cases it's not going to compare to the fact that the archer can usually make full attack actions from the beginning of the combat. Plus the meele fighter has to take attacks of opportunity sometimes, while the archer usually doesn't.

Can sunder/trip/etc - True, meele fighters have more options they can use than archers, who are pretty much stuck with straight damage. But in order to use those options, meele fighters (obviously) have to be close to the monsters, which puts them within range of lots of monster special abilities. And monsters usually have much nastier special abilities than meele fighters (improved grab + swallow, energy drain, etc.) Archers usually don't have to deal with those because they're out of range. Advantage: archer.

Can cleave - Cleave will sometimes give you an extra attack, but archers get an extra attack every round with rapid shot. Again, advantage: archer.

Can subdue - Seriously, how often is this going to come into play? If you're thinking about subduing an enemy, the odds are pretty good that the fight isn't much of a danger anyway.

Doesn't really look that balanced to me. The archer has most of the advantages and does more damage to boot. My fix for this was to change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows, which goes a long way towards fixing the problem of bow and arrow bonuses stacking. Sure, the PCs can still use magic arrows, but those are a limited resource the DM can control.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

I am sorry, it appearsperhaps that I am confused. I have not been comparing archer and melee guy comparisons based on "as if they were fighting each other." I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.

I would surmise that the result of a "archer vs meleer" one-on-one would probably biol down to ranged or not ranged more than most anything else.

If i misunderstood your post about spells distributions, then thats my bad.

As a Gm, i am more conerned with balance between PC characters and their abilities as part of a team than the ubiquitous "who wins this duel" kind of stuff, tho i do understand why others are more interested in such.

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.

Well i can certainly understand the "do it for fun" angle but then that also would not necessarily tend towards the sort of "spread evenly" levels thing you mentioned. it seems that while we both have our guys using different criteria, neither of us is using "spread spell levels evenly" as a basis for that decision, which is what my point was.

thanks.

 

[Petrosian]

Power attack isn't that useful because it automatically applies to all your attacks. So while you get more damage out of your first attack or two, there's a good chance it'll make you miss your final attack, and you're probably going to end up losing more damage from that than you gain from the power attack.

Actually, power attack is a little less efficient than even that.

First off, in ranges where a hit is not automatic (exception 1) power attack is only going to increase your expected damage if the chance to hit is greater than the average damage. (H-D > P)

While power attacks do have their place in the sun, wailing on objects and helpless foes and walls, I have certainly not seen it as as significant a factor in routine combat as the "extra shot at higheest BAB" or the "double stacking from GMW" has been seen to carry.

 

[Zad]

Threatens hexes - Sure, it's nice, but how useful is it really? Casting on the defensive is pretty easy for spellcasters to do. He can set up flanking for the party rogue to get sneak attacks, but that's really a benefit to the rogue, not the meele fighter.

It's still an asset. Nobody said it had to be an asset to the individual character. If the party as a whole does more damage because the rogue can sneak attack, then I call that a benefit.

Gets attacks of opportunity - Again, it's nice, but in most cases it's not going to compare to the fact that the archer can usually make full attack actions from the beginning of the combat. Plus the meele fighter has to take attacks of opportunity sometimes, while the archer usually doesn't.

It still adds to the damage total for the melee fighter. Furthermore, yes the archer can take full attacks from the start of combat, but will probably want to be within 30 feet which means moving. If they're not, their damage drops 3 points per arrow and they loose accuracy as well.

Can cleave - Cleave will sometimes give you an extra attack, but archers get an extra attack every round with rapid shot. Again, advantage: archer.

The entire analysis is figured out with rapid shot included. Archers generally do less damage per shot but get the extra shot. The cleave does add to the damage output of the melee fighter. Countering by saying 'well rapid shot' is redundant - RS was included already. You're trying to count it twice.

Can subdue - Seriously, how often is this going to come into play? If you're thinking about subduing an enemy, the odds are pretty good that the fight isn't much of a danger anyway.

Did I say it was a monumental advantage? No. But it is a benefit.

Doesn't really look that balanced to me. The archer has most of the advantages and does more damage to boot. My fix for this was to change GMW so it doesn't work on arrows, which goes a long way towards fixing the problem of bow and arrow bonuses stacking. Sure, the PCs can still use magic arrows, but those are a limited resource the DM can control.

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think as a fix you've basically said "You cannot be an archer in my game" which I don't think makes much sense. Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels. Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.

Its your world of course, so you can do as you like. I don't think bonus stacking is a problem - it's offset to some extent by power attack. The numbers convinced me of this. The damage gap is just not as big as people make it out to be and those people screaming I don't think ever really worked out how much damage a melee fighter can do.

 

[Darklone]

Assuming the abovementioned combats with foes that are inferior to the PCs, I've seen Power Attack more than once being the norm.

All those examples with large and huge enemies that have less cover behind the melee friends of the archer and now they are soo bad to hit? Large enemies usually would use the abovementioned "trip the archer and whack him" tactic. Probably above the head of the melee boy. Yes you can use your dex bonus to avoid trips. But another thing ... the high dex of the archers usually doesn't help much to raise AC since they end up using lighter (or no) armour. Reflex saves are nice, perhaps combined with evasion, sure. But IME the focusing on strength only still gives the melee fighter a big edge. Add rage to the calculation (which stacks with all those nice strength items or empowered bull's strength) and the melee boy will rival many big monsters damagewise. He will get hit, sure. But if enemies are not able to hit archers too, they will keep their heads down in cover.

The only problem why many melee boys in my groups don't hit that much is because they can't stop using Expertise at maximum. Just a habitude, not that it would help that much.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Yes you can use your dex bonus to avoid trips. But another thing ... the high dex of the archers usually doesn't help much to raise AC since they end up using lighter (or no) armour. .

I just wanted to focus in on this and say

What kind of anti-power gamers or just really bad ones do you play with. Chain shirt + 18 dex =+8 to AC: full plate +12 dex= +9(big difference) 22dex and mithral shirt =+10 aC mithral full palte and 16 dex =+11ac oh yeah I see the difference here.

 

[Grog]

It's still an asset. Nobody said it had to be an asset to the individual character. If the party as a whole does more damage because the rogue can sneak attack, then I call that a benefit.

Okay, that's a fair point. But it's only applicable if there's a rogue in the party and you're fighting something that can be sneak attacked.

It still adds to the damage total for the melee fighter. Furthermore, yes the archer can take full attacks from the start of combat, but will probably want to be within 30 feet which means moving. If they're not, their damage drops 3 points per arrow and they loose accuracy as well.

Well, if the encounter starts more than 30 feet away, there's a good chance the meele fighter may not even be able to attack in the first round, while the archer can get at least one shot off.

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think as a fix you've basically said "You cannot be an archer in my game" which I don't think makes much sense. Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels. Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.

And the PCs don't have to use them on a regular basis. It's the PCs choice. Do they husband their magic arrows carefully, and do less damage as a result? Or do they use them liberally, and risk running out at a critical time? Or do they try to strike a balance?

Also, as DM I control how many magic arrows the party finds. So the balance issue is easily correctable for me. If the archer starts to suck compared to the rest of the group, I increase the number of magic arrows I give as treasure. If the archer is overshadowing the rest of the group, I reduce the number of magic arrows they find. It's easy to handle.

 

[Pax]

I am sorry, it appearsperhaps that I am confused. I have not been comparing archer and melee guy comparisons based on "as if they were fighting each other." I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.

I would surmise that the result of a "archer vs meleer" one-on-one would probably biol down to ranged or not ranged more than most anything else.

If i misunderstood your post about spells distributions, then thats my bad.

As a Gm, i am more conerned with balance between PC characters and their abilities as part of a team than the ubiquitous "who wins this duel" kind of stuff, tho i do understand why others are more interested in such.

Just to clarify further: my example was a tactic for the DM to use, in the person of NPCs, against archers, on occasion (obviously not every melee NPC enemy will have extra partial actions ... but the few who, on occasion, DO ... will give the archers fits and make them that much more grateful to the melee PC's who normally shield them from being closed to melee range.

It's not meant as an example of a duel between PC's, not in the slightest.

Well i can certainly understand the "do it for fun" angle but then that also would not necessarily tend towards the sort of "spread evenly" levels thing you mentioned. it seems that while we both have our guys using different criteria, neither of us is using "spread spell levels evenly" as a basis for that decision, which is what my point was.

thanks.

Apply spell levels exactly evenly, no.

But whoever needs more help to be brought "up to par", tends to get it. Spells don't invariably and exclusively go where they will have the most benefit in-game, they go where they will best ensure everyone at the table has a good time that night. If that means the archer runs out of GMW'd +5 arrows partway through the big fight, because the melee fighter was Hasted ... shrug ... at least both players had a "Fair share" of the fun and entertainment that night.

Oh, and another tactic to deal with archers, that also relies on terrain: pin them against the terrain. Make it so a single 5-foot step cannot take the archer out of a threatened square (back them up against a wall, for example). Most melee characters won't care too much (a wall behind you means you're not going to get flanked form THAT direction at least!), but archers ofc wouldn't like sucking full attacks AND provoking AoO's, both ... !

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Okay, here's a long post, (and I think I've commented on everyone's responses.)

Could you define 'twinky', please?

'Twinky' is a word I picked up some time ago when a guy randomly called me one. He was using it in the same way most people might use 'munchkin'.

To me, it is a verb, adjective and noun:

Verb: 'to twink'--- to make a character more efficient, generally dealing with combat.

Adjective: 'twinky', 'twinkish'--- used to describe to properties of a character that has been 'twinked'.

Noun: 'twink'--- a person who regularly 'twinks'.
.
.
.
In my part of the universe, 'twink' is roughly synonymous to 'munchkin'. The former generally has a bit more prestige, however, because the latter is generally more concerned about Efficiency to the detriment of everything else (inlcluding other players).

A Twink is a "Munchkin Jr.", if you will...

I find that most RPGers have some measure of twink in them. (This description is not an off/on switch, but a sliding scale.) Most RPGers would balk at playing, for example, a bard with a dagger, or a mage with a 3 Int.
.
.
.
So, the way I was using it was to describe that our characters, though not munchkin-wet-dreams, are not anti-munchkin characters.

Victim---

Not always. *snip description*

Beyond raw CR, other factors have to be considered. Some tactical situations aren't going to be threat to certain groups, and others overwhelming.

I never said always. Why would you think that I am attempting to say that CR is an absolute? I understand that CR is a guideline. However, in order for us to have any common ground whatsoever, I use CR. This is because I am not going to bring up every possible combination for every single type of encounter with every combination of character classes in a party against every single type of monster in order to satisfy you.

I need you to trust that I comprehend CR and DMing enough that I am conscientious of the fact that situation and party composition are important factors in determining the challenge of an encounter.

IceBear---
Pressing the Attack feat

I've never seen it, though it looks like a neat feat. (I fear however, that there are probably many archer feats in Dragonstar that compensate for this.)

ascendance---
The other uses TWF, which is only useful for sneak attackers. Real melee characters use 2-handed weapons. Its the way the rules work.

Whoa. Have you ever seen a full blown TWF character? With two weapons (or a double weapon) of speed, improved and greater TWF, specialization, and twin GMWs?

I used to think that dual wielding sucked compared to a two handed weapon. I am now a convert. This is because most analysis' between the two neglect to take into account that increases to damage are more important than increases to hit. A high level fighter with a double-bladed sword of speed (or twin rapiers if you want to crit out) gets 9 attacks per round, with each one gaining bonuses from enhancement bonuses and specialization.

Exotic Weapon Prof: Spiked Chain.

So you are trying to tell me that in order to compete with someone who uses a martial weapon, I need to learn an exotic weapon? Doesn't that imply that the martial weapon in question is too powerful compared to other martial weapons?

....L6 Tribal Defender 1:

We haven't gotten to PrCs yet. This has all been using base classes. Besides, if I go TD, he'd go PA, OotBI and AA (which are all better than the TD, especially if combined).

Pax---
Duom

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can't stand this weapon. It ranks up there with the mercurial cheesword.

Olgar Shiverstone---
I don't see the archer/melee balance as being a problem -- by the core rules of the PHB, DMG, MM.

Actually, the problem is with core rules, namely GMW and RS. Which Petrosian already covered. (We've been playing with core rules in this specific campaign.)

LordAO---
I have a couple of suggestions that might help.

Sorry to nitpick, but, in the past 6 pages of posts, we have already gone over lots of topics. Maybe, just maybe, your suggestions have already been covered.

Petrosian----
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.

I concur.

I was sticking with, what i had percieved, the thread to be about which is their capability against a mix of adversaries as PCs (and to a lesser extent as NPCs) in a tems environment, not some duel between individuals.

I concur.

Zad---
Without GMW on arrows, the archer cannot deal with targets with DR which come up a lot in later levels. Magic arrows are far too expensive to use on a regular basis.

Easy way to fix this...make magical arrows less expensive, maybe?

Darklone---
The only problem why many melee boys in my groups don't hit that much is because they can't stop using Expertise at maximum.

Weird. Our melee guys never use Expertise. (Most never have the requisite Int, anyway.)

Grog---
Also, as DM I control how many magic arrows the party finds. So the balance issue is easily correctable for me. If the archer starts to suck compared to the rest of the group, I increase the number of magic arrows I give as treasure. If the archer is overshadowing the rest of the group, I reduce the number of magic arrows they find. It's easy to handle.

Although I agree with everything else in your posts, I personally don't like this DMing style. I much prefer the treasure to not vary based on the party composition. Treasure, IMHO, should be plausible and probable, not a DM tool to limit character effectiveness. That is, afterall, the whole point of gp value for treasure. (To each his own, however.)

I am more inclined to believe that the designers of the game were smoking crack when they priced magical arrows (sorry, Monte *grin*). A melee fighter swings their weapon way more than 50 times before the weapon breaks, and yet an archer would lose those hard-earned gps after 50 shots.

I still stick by my 1/500 pricing. It's limiting, but not castrating. Of course, YMMV and all that...

 

[Lela]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can't stand this weapon. It ranks up there with the mercurial cheesword.

I like the Merc. Greatsword. After errata of course. Now it only has the crit increased to x4.

Then agian, I can always "twink" around with it and at things like Icy Burst (my personal favorite).

Then agian, I had a fighter in my group a while back who always seemed to hit (and often crit) with his greatsword. The DM hated that sword. It broke everytime he rolled a 1. It was a great joke; even the player himself laughed.

Then, our Bard found the Mending spell. Joke was back on the DM then.

I can still see him hitting his head on the desk. Over and over.

Now, the reason I brought this up was so I could point out what happened when he started taking levels in Weapon Master. But it seems we aren't allowed to mention PrCs (Tribal Defender anyone?) that aren't Core.

Seeing as they just happened to have the AA in there; the arguement becomes biased. Again, not that he needed a PrC to smack down monsters (munchkin like). He just happened to get one.

That same player also happens to be the Archer in my current campaign. Everyone is overpowered in that one though and it is only slightly noticed by myself. And if I knew more about tactics (like I do after this thread) I would be better able to handle ranged guys.

I'll let you know how next session goes.