I'm annoyed at archers.

[kigmatzomat]

...Teamwork is an important part of the game.

That being said, you most of all should see why some of us could be annoyed at archers. Like the experience of another poster from the SCA, you felt good teaming up with others for maximum effect. Do you get the gradatude of your comrads for being in harms way? Do you worry about dying more offen than the archer because you throw yourself in the way of danger? Maybe you have great skill in character design so you are safe, others do not.

In the game I run, the fighter is known as Suvantar "of Ipecac" with a battle cry of "Eat me!" He is not kidding. He has been in more creature's gullets than any other game I've seen or heard of. (and no, I'm not playing to him) The rest of the party appreciates him incredibly. Once he got separated from the others and they had a fight sans meat shield. They were nearly worm food from a measly carrion crawler that was able to engage all of them in melee attacks.

In the other games (I tend to play with different people than I run for; no reason, it just happens) if the others didn't follow MY lead they tended to get eaten. I was point and the second-tier fighters (strong druid, weak ranger, rogue) positioned themselves to best effect around me, with the ranged characters using us as cover. It only took a few times for the bard to drift too far from the protective wall of muscle and get mauled before they learned where the safe zone was. And who saved them when they were getting mobbed? That's right, me, the fighter.

I really don't think the problem you are having is with ranged characters or you'd have the same opinion of spellcasters using area effect or ranged spells. (darn, do I as a GM hate spike growth some days)

No, I think your character isn't being appreciated. You'll have to decide if that's because you judge your value based on damage directly dealt or if the others in the party (possibly the archer in particular) are ungrateful bastards.

Personally I knew that after 5th level, the melee character will no longer be able to do more damage in a single round than the rest of the party. Rogues start getting enough sneak attack dice and fireballs start showing up that you just can't measure your worth based on max damage.

Oh, and just wait 'til that archer finally fumbles a saving throw and all his magic arrows get incinerated. Swords have high hardness and lots of HPs, arrows are like wands, hardness 5, 5hp. Anything doing 20hp damage will destroy every arrow, even after a successful save.

OT
Heh. I got to watch a sorceror/rogue and fighter/wizard fumble saves last session; almost three dozen wands went blooie. Serious personal entertainment, since the rogue hadn't been hurt by a single one of the cryohydra's breath attacks all night.

 

[LokiDR]

I really don't think the problem you are having is with ranged characters or you'd have the same opinion of spellcasters using area effect or ranged spells. (darn, do I as a GM hate spike growth some days)
....

Oh, and just wait 'til that archer finally fumbles a saving throw and all his magic arrows get incinerated. Swords have high hardness and lots of HPs, arrows are like wands, hardness 5, 5hp. Anything doing 20hp damage will destroy every arrow, even after a successful save.

OT
Heh. I got to watch a sorceror/rogue and fighter/wizard fumble saves last session; almost three dozen wands went blooie. Serious personal entertainment, since the rogue hadn't been hurt by a single one of the cryohydra's breath attacks all night.

Don't get me wrong, I hate spell casters where I am just annoyed at archers, but I didn't want to bring that into the whole mix. The primary difference is that I can use SR to slow them a great deal, melee threats on arcane casters are very dangerous to them, and spells run out, except, perhaps, the sorcerer.

I was interested in your destruction of equipment though. Besides not knowing the item destruction rules very well when it comes to AoE spells, I always felt it cruel to take away treasure that way. I always hated it when it was done to me, I prefer not to do it to my players. Besides, it makes the loss more memorable when it does happen. Do you normally use this to keep arrow supplies low? Counting arrows gets tedious most times, at least for me, but if I can destroy them 50 at a bunch...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Smaug was killed by Bard. I'm not kidding.
(I worded it oddly, for those not familiar with the book. Someone will post a more sensible comment soon.)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Don't get me wrong, I hate spell casters where I am just annoyed at archers, but I didn't want to bring that into the whole mix.

Yes I suck for the Hi-Jack.

But spell-casters espcially arcane style ones ahve always been a favorite of mine in RPGs and novels. I play them in games where they suck and I play them in games where they rock. In many campaigns in D&D though where there are sufficient encoutners per day, I almost don't want to play one because the amount of lime light I can steal if I paly my wiz/sor even half intelligently is obscene. Damage dealing doesn't bother me much with the D4 hp crap bab, one good save, and limited resources. But ugh I can handle virtually any situation with spells, the I can solve any problem and I only need others as meat shields thing gets on my nerves. Which is why I like the evercrack RPG the spellcasters can dish it out in their specialty but they aren't so much the do anything yabos they are in d&d.(though the divine casters in evercrack annoy me in that they have offensive spells on par with all the arcane dorks except the wizard and they have just as much utility and they still get good hp, saves, bab etc.)

But in my 3e camapign to help v the spellcasters all non spellcasters got a boost of 2 skill points a level and a widended there class skill list. Bards got 2 more skill points since I thought they were a bit weak, and paladins/ranges got +1 skill pont a level and a slightly broadended skill list since they are only partial casters.) This doesn't help in the archer v grunt debate, which is why its a hi-jack and why that yes I do suck.

 

[LokiDR]

I gave every class in my current campaign 2 more skill points, but didn't remove the skill point cap or add class skills. It seems to work out well, since characters have points to spread arround. It hasn't been more than an odity so far, so i will continue.

 

[Celebrim]

LokiDR: That isn't a 'by the book' 3rd. ed. mechanic for handling destruction of equipement, but it is certainly a reasonable one and much more in line with the 1st ed. mechanic than the default one. I kinda like it.

By default in 3rd. ed. though, only one object goes *kaplooie* when you fumble a saving throw vs. a damaging attack and there is a definate order of precendence which would in general protect said arrows.

 

[LokiDR]

Ah, noted. I knew there was reason I usually didn't mess with item destruction, by the rules. Good to know, none the less.

 

[Lela]

Not allowed? By whom? If you mean that many of us will immediately dismiss your argument, then yes. Claiming that archery is broken because of a non-core feat, prestige class or spell is like claiming that a rogue's sneak attack is too powerful because Traps & Treachery has an Improved Sneak Attack. The base rules mechanics are fine...it's the new feat, class or spell that is throwing your balance off. Once you get away from the core rules, you loose the validity to comment on their efficacy.

First off, Grog didn't say that. I did. Careful with the references there.

Second, I'm actully for archers the way they are. The Weapon Master example was a reference to what happens when you have a class that focuses in one melee weapon. The Core AA does this with the bow (using magic of course) but there aren't any classes that do the same for melee weapons (Core only). With me so far?

Now, I was implying (because you didn't seem to catch on there) that because of the AA, the argument is stacked in favor of the archers when it comes to PrCs (which did come up).

At last we come to my overall point. In breif, t is claimed that archers are too powerful. We look at archers feats and what is going on in the game in question. The response comes that the melee guys aren't as "tweaked" as the archer and an example is given of one way to "tweak" them. It, of course, is immeditally dismissed because someone doesn't like the none-core materials.

This thread seems to repeat of that cycle (from both sides, I might add) since page 2.

Seeing as a new page of this forms every two days, each page repeats what was said two pages before, they cycle above, and my time is becomming more limited as finalls aproach, I'm going to step out of this thing.

Congratulations, you have beaten me out by repeating the same thing over and over until I got tired of listening.

 

[WizarDru]

First off, Grog didn't say that. I did. Careful with the references there.

Sorry, cutting-and-paste mistake. I'll correct that now. Mea Culpa.

Second, I'm actully for archers the way they are. The Weapon Master example was a reference to what happens when you have a class that focuses in one melee weapon. The Core AA does this with the bow (using magic of course) but there aren't any classes that do the same for melee weapons (Core only). With me so far?

Now, I was implying (because you didn't seem to catch on there) that because of the AA, the argument is stacked in favor of the archers when it comes to PrCs (which did come up).

I think I'm following what you're saying here, I just think you're wrong. The assumption that the AA is inherintely superior and that an archer who classes into AA is the ultimate archer under the core rules is debatable (especially due to the sacrifices required to become one). I agree there is no corresponding Master Swordsman PrC under core, but I don't see that as a weakness per se. The AA's primary ability is to spontaneously produce self-powered magic arrows without another spell-caster's aid. Useful, yes, but not that much more useful than having a wizard GMW your arrows.

At last we come to my overall point. In breif, t is claimed that archers are too powerful. We look at archers feats and what is going on in the game in question. The response comes that the melee guys aren't as "tweaked" as the archer and an example is given of one way to "tweak" them. It, of course, is immeditally dismissed because someone doesn't like the none-core materials.

This thread seems to repeat of that cycle (from both sides, I might add) since page 2.

Not by me, it wasn't. I haven't said thing one about the melee characters, except to request an actual by-the-numbers comparison using pure archer versus pure melee and only core rules information (i.e. no S&F, MotW, and so forth). The reason to exclude the splatbook material is to clean the slate, and illustrate that it's not fair to call archery broken if you're only going to claim it's broken due to subsequent and vastly undertested material. Saying that archery is broken because of a FTR5/BRB1/OOBI8/DWS3 in your game, all the while ignoring the possibility that the error lies with the splatbook material and not the core is, IMHO, just plain silly.

You seem to have been somewhat selective in which posts you read, which is your perogative, but not all of us have been riding that merry-go-round.

Congratulations, you have beaten me out by repeating the same thing over and over until I got tired of listening.

Yay, me!

 

[WizarDru]

I generally don't play paladins, but I have. If the rest of the party couldn't accept the children's deaths, I would help the party with their solution, depending on charcter. Some of my characters would have run, some kill, some rescue the children at all costs. The point is that this situation has come up rarely in my experience, so I don't try to plan for it.

In this case, that would have turned out to be a lose/lose situation. Possibility of a TPK AND wanton murder of innocents. You can read the actual details right here.

I never said archers dominate. I said I am annoyed by them. I am annoyed as a DM always being forced to plan around this group. I can change my game, but I can't force other DMs to do so to theirs. Maybe, just maybe, a future DM of mine will read this thread and decide that a lot of situations favor the archer, and this can be annoying.

Fair enough. I certainly don't disagree that there are plenty of situations that do, or that archers aren't strong. Archers annoy me too, sometimes.