I'm annoyed at archers.

[IceBear]

Oh man, not *THAT* question again (before it was with unarmed attacks though).

This long and ugly thread is about to get even longer and more ugly. I would personally say, no he doesn't as he's using the bow (to do otherwise, in my opinion, takes away one of the disadvantages of using a bow). Some would say yes he does. Others would say, that if he decided to use two weapon fighting penalties - at the beginning of the rounf - then he could.

IceBear

 

[LokiDR]

It's not like there hasn't been enough argument on this one, but I'd like to point out something people have glossed over in the melee vs. ranged comparisons.

Attacks of Opportunity.

Archer doesn't threaten, so he doesn't get AoOs. His attacks are limited to the Full Attack action he'll take, and if hasted his Partial action as well.

Swordsman gets his attacks, but he also gets AoOs. Even without Combat Reflexes, there'll usually be SOME point in the round where he gets to take an AoO on the bad guy, at his full BAB. In general, the damage lost by being forced to move+attack instead of Full Attack should be made up for by even one AoO.

I had a Psychic Warrior with a Glaive, Psionic Charge, Stand Still, Combat Reflexes, and a 50' base movement. She'd charge up to the bad guys, hit one of them, and then do 3 or 4 AoOs as they tried either to get to her or go past her. Sure, it was less consistent than the Archer's damage, but it had a far greater effect on the battle's outcome thanks to Stand Still.

Tumble, DC 15 stops this pretty quick. Since archers place a premium on dex, they should have a good chance if they get the tumble skill at all. Neither I nor any one I know use psionics, so I haven't seen Stand Still in action. Is there a non-psionic version? This tatic could be fun with Pressing Attack.

 

[Petrosian]

I should have been more specific...

The myth i was referring to is the one about how fragile bows are with only hardness 5 and blah blah... many melee weapons are similarly 5 hardness and low HP, such as spears and staves.

Bows are indeed probably easier to hit, depending on the relative strengths in combat of the participants. They are just not obviously more fragile than most melee weapons...

As for the other guy who wonders why i would apply the rules for enhancements to bows...

Well, bows are weapons...

"The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness and hit points. If a combatant's shield has a +2 enhancement bonus, a combatant add 2 to its hardness and to its hit points."

If it said MELEE weapon, i would agree with excluding bows from this.

it doesn't.

Is there an FAQ or erratta that i have missed which specifies this only applies to MELEE WEAPONS? If so then i am in error.

If not, then are you suggesting that by implementing this house rule that weakens bows you have found them to be balanced in play in your games?

Given i think archery is a tad overpowered, i would not be averse to the notion that applying a house rule that made bows more vulnerable than the core rules specify resulted in a balanced play.

 

[LokiDR]

I know that other GMs have done well with item destruction, but I still say it should be used sparingly. To weaken bows to destruction by the means mentioned would just mean that archers would have to carry arround more of them. For me, this falls into the arrow counting, used as a counter point to common operating procedure.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for the other guy who wonders why i would apply the rules for enhancements to bows...

Well, bows are weapons...

Is there an FAQ or erratta that i have missed which specifies this only applies to MELEE WEAPONS? If so then i am in error.

The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.

The quote about enhancement bonuses making weapons invulnerable to lesser enhancements, adding to hit points, etc, falls under the subheading of "Strike a Weapon" in the PHB (the section that applies to melee weapons only), while no corresponding quote appears in the "Strike an Object" section (the one that applies to ranged weapons).

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.

The quote about enhancement bonuses making weapons invulnerable to lesser enhancements, adding to hit points, etc, falls under the subheading of "Strike a Weapon" in the PHB (the section that applies to melee weapons only), while no corresponding quote appears in the "Strike an Object" section (the one that applies to ranged weapons).

-Hyp.

Interesting. i do not think that clear a division of rules exists in the SRD. i found the section on magic weapons in the same place as hardness and so on.

I will have to look tonight to verify your PHB references. i had thought the rule in question was in the DMG myself.

 

[Artoomis]

First, the FAQ mentions this "ruling" as basically an aside in answering another question, not very authoritative, that.

Second, the SRD does not group the rules the same way, so that rules for magic weapons and shields is not under "attack a weapon."

Third, even if the sage really feels that bows should be treated as an object under "attacking an object," that does not change the fact that the rules, as written, would include bows as "weapons."

It's an enormous stretch to think that this mention of bows as object, buried inside paragraphs dealing with a different issue, should mean that the rule for attacking magic weapons does not apply to them.

(See also the thread on sundering shields, where I just posted the same thing)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Even if you don't got deny bows their invulnerability to damage from less enhanced weapons, they still have a few disadvantages vis a vis melee weapons:

1. They have less hit points than most hafted melee weapons. Sure, a battle axe has hardness 5 and 5 hp or so. That's still three more than a bow. Average damage from an orc with a greataxe (9.5) won't sunder the axe. It will sunder the bow.

2. Since ranged weapons don't threaten an area, opponents don't need the sunder feat in order to sunder them without penalty. If the orc warrior tries to sunder the battle axe, he'll probably end up dead from the AoO. The archer doesn't get an AoO.

3. Since the FAQ indicates that the strike an object rather than strike a weapon rules should be used for sundering a bow, it's a good deal easier for mooks to hit a bow than a battle axe. To hit the battle axe, they need to beat the melee fighter (who's probably several levels higher than them) in an opposed attack roll. In order to hit the bow, they just need to hit a set number (that's usually lower than 10+melee char's attack bonus).

And that's without bringing in house rules for metal hafted or reinforced hafts on battle axes or house rules that make it the axe head and not the axe handle that's enchanted (allowing a new handle to be attached repairing the axe at a cost of a few gp rather than a few thousand).

The argument is that the FAQ clarifies the "Strike a Weapon" rules to apply to melee weapons only, and that ranged weapons use the "Strike an Object" rules.

The quote about enhancement bonuses making weapons invulnerable to lesser enhancements, adding to hit points, etc, falls under the subheading of "Strike a Weapon" in the PHB (the section that applies to melee weapons only), while no corresponding quote appears in the "Strike an Object" section (the one that applies to ranged weapons).

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Even if you don't got deny bows their invulnerability to damage from less enhanced weapons, they still have a few disadvantages vis a vis melee weapons:

I give no argument that there are advantages... merely to the percieved fragility in comparison.

1. They have less hit points than most hafted melee weapons. Sure, a battle axe has hardness 5 and 5 hp or so. That's still three more than a bow. Average damage from an orc with a greataxe (9.5) won't sunder the axe. It will sunder the bow.

At lower levels, the factors that propel archery beyond melee are not present. The fact that a levelless orc has a better chance is relaively insignificant in my games once arhcery is at its peak.

2. Since ranged weapons don't threaten an area, opponents don't need the sunder feat in order to sunder them without penalty. If the orc warrior tries to sunder the battle axe, he'll probably end up dead from the AoO. The archer doesn't get an AoO.

By the levels when archery is IMO in need of balancing, the sunder feat is easily accessible for those who tend to include it in their tactics. it fits right nicely alongside the opposite feats spent on archery in the examples.

3. Since the FAQ indicates that the strike an object rather than strike a weapon rules should be used for sundering a bow, it's a good deal easier for mooks to hit a bow than a battle axe. To hit the battle axe, they need to beat the melee fighter (who's probably several levels higher than them) in an opposed attack roll. In order to hit the bow, they just need to hit a set number (that's usually lower than 10+melee char's attack bonus).

No argument, the bow is easier to hit. hitting it and damaging it, are two different things.

And that's without bringing in house rules for metal hafted or reinforced hafts on battle axes or house rules that make it the axe head and not the axe handle that's enchanted (allowing a new handle to be attached repairing the axe at a cost of a few gp rather than a few thousand).

I have no problem with any Gm who has decided to add house rules to further empower melee weapons as opposed to bows. It seems many Gms have decided to use such rules and that once they are in use some semblance of balance occurs.

I have no issue with these examples of alternatives at all.

Well, acrually, i would tend to guess that if the balance option chose for archers is "break your magic weapons" that this might not be the most enjoyable solution for those who want to play archers and who really would prefer a balanced set of archery mechanics in favor of having their hard earned loot broken again and again and again.

Me, i st6ill prefer using the "solve the problem" by direct means, addressing the double double rules instead of trying to find more ways to take things away.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Third, even if the sage really feels that bows should be treated as an object under "attacking an object," that does not change the fact that the rules, as written, would include bows as "weapons."

All right. By the rules, Melee Matt fights Archer Adam. Matt attacks Adam's bow. Adam is unable to AoO Matt since he doesn't threaten. Matt makes his attack roll. As part of the "Strike Weapon" action, Adam makes his attack....roll? Huh? He parries with an arrow?

Ignoring the "incidental" comments that do not explicitly address the issue, logic alone dictates that the bow is unable to take advantage of the "Strike Weapon" mechanics because 1) the bow user gets no AoO despite "strike weapon" granting one and 2) because the opposed attack rolls in the mechanic can not in any rational world make sense.

And personally if you were a DM who made that ruling, I would make a called shot on the bowstring. Hardness 2, 1 HP, sure +4 AC.