I'm annoyed at archers.

[LokiDR]

I've been blaming either an unimaginative DM, or unimaginative melee fighters for ConcreteBuddha's complaints ever since this discussion started, but with the severely limited information he's giving, it's pretty much impossible to work out who's actually in the wrong - given that he just keeps chanting the mantra "but they kill everything in 2 rounds" without any elaboration, I'm guessing that it's him as he appears not to be thinking about combat in a tactical way at all.

There are a lot changes that various people make to D&D to bring the game into what they consider the most fun. Look at harm and haste. There are also a number of people who believe that these aspects are just fine. Some poster has a sig of "Save the H spells". Neither side is correct for all groups, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to this message board.

In the case of the ConcreteBudda, I have a feeling that archers are more optimized than the melee characters. I also have a feeling that the DM uses tatics that favor the archers. And the concept remains that a lot of the rules favor archers.

ConcreteBudda, myself, and other get annoyed by this. To make the game more fun for us, we talk about the issues we face on these boards.

1.) Optimize the melee characters.
Sure it may well work. Some of us don't like putting the rules ahead of the character we envision. Is that such a bad thing? At very least, there might be a few more character ideas floating around.

2) Demand the DM change tatics.
Also might work. Again, this causes a person to change the way they envision the combat. Should every DM read up on all the tatics to stop the archers? What if I just want to play a simple game? Again a good thing to know, again a solution that may or may not be best.

3) Change the rules that favor archers.
The hard core solution many may not like. How many rules will you change? Didn't the designers do a good enough job for you? How is a new player ever supposed to get through all your house rules? But if it lets you play the game you want to play, then maybe you could just remember it is a game, pull out the red pen, and edit away.

Chose your solution. Many specifics have been posted. I think the specifics of ConcreteBudda's situation are irrelivent. This is a rant thread, and it is good to know how others deal with archers.

 

[Darklone]

2) Demand the DM change tatics.
Also might work. Again, this causes a person to change the way they envision the combat. Should every DM read up on all the tatics to stop the archers? What if I just want to play a simple game? Again a good thing to know, again a solution that may or may not be best.

LokiDR, not to rant again... but all I did say in my last ranting posts was that my experiences didn't confirm your posted experiences with archers and I tried to explain that it may be due to the way how my monsters and NPCs react to being shot by archers. I got these "tactics" (common sense) from experiences with SCA battles and other stuff and that's why these tactics (like hiding) were the logical choice for even not very intelligent opponents.

All I wanted to say and did say:
If you envision combat different to us... and experience the outcome different (with archers being unbalanced in your games)... then don't try to convince others with other experiences that they are unbalanced. I play a rather simple game too and it works.

As for tumbling and armour: The SRD states:

Tumble (DEX; TRAINED ONLY; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)

The character can't use this skill if the character's speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot.

I think I remember similar wording from the PHB.

 

[Berk]

In the words of the great late Sam Kinison.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IceBear]

BTW - I understand the rant about how archers really worked in the real world, but in D&D the one melee fighter is probably equivalent to many real world fighters and thus we're back to the teamwork thing. The melee fighter(s) is keeping the enemy away from the archer so he can be effective - like in your rant.

Anyway, I agree that archer probably isn't as glorious and honorable as compared to melee combat, and I think my players feel the same way. They might use missle weapons at the beginning of combat, but they pretty much switch to melee within a couple of rounds as I think they don't get as much satisifaction out of defeating their enemies unless it's hand to hand.

And as I've been saying for awhile - D&D is a game. If a player (or a few) aren't enjoying the game then it's up to the DM to provide that enjoyment. Some people enjoy being the meat shield that helps defend the party while someone else gets the kill. Others need to kill the monsters to have fun. If the DM has to pull some drastic measures in order to make everyone happy, then that's what (s)he needs to do.

IceBear

 

[Corwin the Confused]

Just for the record, while I don't deny that the archers at Agincourt had all the advantages you describe, the site you link to is not what I would call a rigorous critical historical source. So, while I don't disagree with your assertions, neither do I necessarily endorse everything that might be concluded by reading the site in question.

Hmmmmm, did I ask for your endorsement of my point? I think not. Iff you can find a more "rigorous critical historical source" please feel free to post it. But I think my point was made by both of these fly-by-night sites. And this has little to do with my final point which was the main point.

 

[LokiDR]

As for tumbling and armour: The SRD states:

Tumble (DEX; TRAINED ONLY; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)

The character can't use this skill if the character's speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot.

I think I remember similar wording from the PHB.

I have never caught that wording before. My mistake. However, since it is likely that the archer is using dex for a good portion of their AC (not in heavy armor) I imagine a majority of archers would still be able to tumble.

 

[LokiDR]

LokiDR, not to rant again... but all I did say in my last ranting posts was that my experiences didn't confirm your posted experiences with archers and I tried to explain that it may be due to the way how my monsters and NPCs react to being shot by archers. I got these "tactics" (common sense) from experiences with SCA battles and other stuff and that's why these tactics (like hiding) were the logical choice for even not very intelligent opponents.

All I wanted to say and did say:
If you envision combat different to us... and experience the outcome different (with archers being unbalanced in your games)... then don't try to convince others with other experiences that they are unbalanced. I play a rather simple game too and it works.

I was refering more to DM choice of encounters than specific actions. There are such things as not intelligent enemies. As for hidding, if the archer has shot at you already, hiding would just mean you are pinned down. Also, hiding isn't an option for all creatures/terains. Those are more decisions for the DM which may favor archers.

My experiences come from a variety of sources, and others have added their own. I am not trying to convince you archers are unbalanced in your game, because you seem already do this naturally. Other DMs may not. Not every DM handles every aspect of the game with the most skill.

 

[Storm Raven]

I didn't read the book. I don't recal a similar situation from The Lord of the Rings though.

Bard the Bowman shot Smaug through the heart with an arrow, slaying what was possibly the most powerful dragon left alive in Middle-Earth. No one ever engaged Smaug in sword swinging combat.

As for a similar situation in LotR, In the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas, using his bow primarily, has a kill count that tends to consistently exceed Gimli the axe wielder.

 

[WizarDru]

As for a similar situation in LotR, In the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas, using his bow primarily, has a kill count that tends to consistently exceed Gimli the axe wielder.

Bad example, actually. Legolas only leads in the very beginning of the siege, with 9 kills to Gimli's 2. They then stay even through most of the battle, with Gimli winning with 42 kills to Legolas' 41. Legolas also runs out of arrows during at least one phase of the siege. I just finished reading it, and then went just now to double-check, after you mentioned.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd say Gimli wasn't as high level as Legolas, anyway. He couldn't even jump over that gap in the swaying bridge, sheesh! Hero of the dwarven people my [censored ].