Artoomis said:
It seems like one of the most pervasive arguments about why archer are powerful revolves around GMW. It also seems to me that if a party relies on GMW, that word will get around via the "bad guy network," and pretty soon when this adventuring group is out and about bad guys will be flinging Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel) around quite a bit.
Do bad guys have a network? Probably not the chaotic ones.
Artoomis said:
In fact, in anything except a dungeon crawl, a famous group will tend to get known for its tactics, and, unless they can be flexible, they will soon find their cool tactics lead to their demise.
A min/maxed archer will still be powerful after being dispelled.
Artoomis said:
Also, of course, the great equalizer is the enemy archers who will target the archer. This should happen routinely. "Fireball" and the like are the best defense against this.
A smart archer would take cover from the NPC archers. Plus how many arcane casters want to fireball one target? But perhaps I miss your point.
Artoomis said:
In real ancient and medieval warfare, archers were feared for good reason. This is not well-represented in D&D for balance reasons. Still, as can be seen by this thread, they still can cause some concern.
Partial rant partial speech begins:
Artoomis, I do not mean to single you out. I just wish to address this opinion that seems to prevail on this thread. Sorry, if I look like I am flaming you.
Archers have had a long history of success:
The following are excerpts from this page
Archery Link
"The bow and arrow has been the personal weapon of choice throughout the ages, and evidence of its use goes back well beyond 5000 B.C. The bow stands uniquely by itself as an effective and highly efficient hunting weapon and has been used continuously throughout the ages by most cultures, both primitive and modern. Early military records concerning the use of the bow have been recorded from countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and the Far East and has figured prominently in the success of numerous military campaigns throughout history. Although in modern times, the role of the bow has been virtually replaced by the use of gunpowder, it still remains the favorite weapon of many sportsmen. In fact, the bow, in its most primitive form, has been used to hunt big game throughout the world, including the African elephant."
"References to the use of the bow as an important military weapon come from most of the early civilizations in Europe and Asia. ... the bow first gives rise to prominence as an effective military weapon in the 11th century during the Norman invasion of England in 1066."
There are instances where single archers can kill heros. For instance, when King Harold died as a result of being hit in the eye by an arrow.
But archers typically needed large numbers to have a devastating impact on a battle. And they would need to have either long range or greatly protected flanks or higher ground or terrain that is hard to cross. At one of the most successful battles for archers, The Battle of Agincourt, they had all four. They were at long range. Their flanks were protected by trees as well as Henry V's troops. And they were up a rain soaked farmers field.
You can confirm this info at this site.
Battle of Agincourt
Historically archery had the biggest impact on the way wars were fought. (Not as much as guns had though.) As I said above there is a quote that says, The honor went out of war when you no longer had to see the expression on a man's face as you killed him.
Artoomis said:
It's kind of like saying that mounted warriors are unbalanced in D&D. In a way they are - I can easily set up a mounted dog scenario that is truly vicious with ride-by attack, etc. It's pretty hard to counter, given that there is no AoO and you get to keep zipping by giving as much as x4 damage routinely, x6 on a critical! .
So what? Such characters are rather specialized and it does them no good when their particular specialty cannot be used.
I agree specialists lay waste to their foes when they are in their favored environment. Isn’t that as it should be?
Full Round RANT begins (Yes, I am hasted!):
D&D is a fantasy role-playing game.
For me I do not see archers as heroic or believing in chivalry. I like the old Cavalier that disdained the use of range weapons. But that is just me.
In D&D there are no modifiers about archery in rain. Historically speaking, Medieval archers would refuse to use their bows in the rain as it would ruin their bowstrings.
Also above there has been alot of talk about sundering of bows. In real life, how hard is it to sunder a bowstring. Or how resistant to fire or acid is a bowstring.
The bottom line is that I too am ANNOYED BY ARCHERS!
And I understand why if they were taken prisoner they had their fingers cut off. (Arquebusiers were killed.)
Archers can deal out massive damage. And an Archer with a prestige class or classes is very powerful. But can they deal out more damage than a Theif/Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger who can use two weapons while raging and sneak attacking?
Are Archers broken? IMO, no. But it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that all the players are involved in the game. So if ConcreteBuddha has his ENJOYMENT of the GAME ruined by the Archers, then I blame an unimaginative DM.
