I'm annoyed at archers.

[Grog]

Frankly to a certain extent I think the whole "Problem with archers" is over blown.

To a certain extent I agree, but the fact is that allowing the magical bonuses of bows and arrows to stack makes archers considerably more powerful than meele characters. Archers can get +10/+10 hit/damage bonuses from magic. To get +10/+10 from a meele weapon you need a greater artifact!

Now, the strength bonus from an archer's bow will max out at +4, while it doesn't max out for a meele weapon. So if a meele fighter can get his strength high enough, that will balance out the magical bonuses from the archer's bow and arrows.

But there's still the fact that archers can make full attacks from the get-go, while meele fighters often only get one attack in the first round of an engagement because they have to close with the enemy. And meele fighters are in all kinds of danger from the special abilities, grappling, or even just plain damage from monsters, while archers are often safe since they fight from a distance.

So IMO there is a game balance problem. But I think GMW is the source of it - without access to an essentially unlimited supply of magic arrows, archers are much more in balance, again IMO.

 

[Ramien Meltides]

Here's a thought:

Come up with an evil monastery that the PC's must oppose or destroy. Ta da... monks are pretty effective at not being toasted by arrows. Plus, deflect arrows is a low level ability, so you could have either a few high-level monks or a lot of low-level monks as the opposition in a given encounter. It's worth a try.

 

[Endur]

GMW, Archers, etc.

I have seen archers wax and wane.

I really don't think they are too out of balance.

Let's assume, for instance, that we are dealing with a high level party. Enough +5 GMWs for everyone in the party, so that archers can get two (one for bow and one for arrows).

level 15 (or higher caster level)

Well, in addition to GMW, all of the fighter types are probably also receiving Bulls Strength. Archer str bonus maxes out at str 18 (+4 to damage).

Let's suppose our melee type receives a twice-empowered bulls strength (a 6th level spell, reasonable considering that the spell casters have 8th level and possibly higher level spells).

So lets look at our typical 16th level 1/2 orc barbarian, Krusk

Krusk has str 22, plus rage(+6) so str 28 plus twice empowered bulls strength (figure +6 or +8), so total strength around 36 =
+13 strength modifier

Add the fact that Krusk is using a two-handed weapon, his actual damage bonus from strength is +19, compared to an archer's +4.

Add in Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave, and all of a sudden, the archers don't seem quite so powerful, even though they have GMW on both their arrows and their bows.

And we're not even talking about prestige classes yet.

Tom

 

[hong]

Re: GMW, Archers, etc.

I have seen archers wax and wane.

I really don't think they are too out of balance.

Not even my guy who did 300+ points of damage to that black dragon?

 

[hong]

Yes, archers especially well crafted archers are very effective characters IF given proper support by party members.

Cf. the "Poor Bloody Infantry" quote of mine, above.

So those "ineffective" other characters are vital for the archers to be the efficient killing machines that they have the potential to be. In essence, you are complaining that the party is functioning as a team.

No, he's complaining that one segment of the team is hogging the spotlight time as a side-effect of how the rules work. That's not how things should work, at least not in my book.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Re: Re: GMW, Archers, etc.

Not even my guy who did 300+ points of damage to that black dragon?

That was nothing compared to the kobold that did 500+ points of damage in one round. Meepo would be proud.
Helpful Hint for everyone: When a foe is Great Cleaving against summoned Dire Bears, stay out of melee range.

Geoff.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't see any problems with Core Rules archers. Stack the bow and arrow bonusses if you want. I don't see many problems with Sword and Fist archers and even MotW archers don't seem too bad.

However, archers have a number of feats available to them that are too good. Manyshot is one of those feats. By allowing archers to take essentially full attacks with partial actions, they make haste three or four times as good for archers as for melee characters.

The other problem ability is any kind of ranged power attack. I'm told that Peerless archer gets this. That's a problem waiting to happen though since archers get to stack bow attack bonusses, arrow attack bonusses, and an uncapped dexterity attack bonus. Melee characters have an uncapped strength attack bonus and an uncapped weapon attack bonus but not the extra stacking bonus.

It should be noted that (at least according to the story hour) the character in Wizardru's game who blew the dragon encounter out of the water used Manyshot to do it. . . .

 

[WizarDru]

However, archers have a number of feats available to them that are too good. Manyshot is one of those feats. By allowing archers to take essentially full attacks with partial actions, they make haste three or four times as good for archers as for melee characters.

[...]

It should be noted that (at least according to the story hour) the character in Wizardru's game who blew the dragon encounter out of the water used Manyshot to do it. . . .

True, true...but I don't think Kayleigh (the archer in question) was out of balance for doing it. If anything, I think it shows that Haste is a little too good, perhaps. In that particular case, the abyssal dragon was insane, or he would have shut Kayleigh down a round earlier...the round prior to when she delivered the damage. As it was, she did 164 points over 7 attacks while hasted, using the full feat chain for archers, (including being an AA) many shot and scored a series of critical hits with a bow using elementally charged arrows. Strong, yes, but for a 17th level character, not insane, especially since this particular dragon had very little spell power, and no elemental resistances.

Once the force cage went up, she was effectively out of the combat, just like the party mage, who was in a Maze. In point of fact, it was a fifty-fifty roll for the maze spell, and Scorch "won". In the previous session, the paladin did almost an equal amount of damage in melee, but over three attacks with crits, not seven. AND he was operating in a demiplane that was strongly chaotically-aligned, with the incumbent penalties therein.

That said, I don't like creating too many convoluted situations purely to stymie one or a set of players. This is why one combat will be with non-corporeal creatures, this one with undead and that one with powerful evil outsiders. I don't want to penalize my players, I want to reward them. And I definitely don't want to set up situations where it's obvious they were constructed purely for the purpose of meta-gaming balance. I'd like to think that I've been accomplishing that. I do know that when I focus on any more campaigns, a lot of limiting factors that I didn't use this time out will be present next time (such as the use of point-buy, which I've seen have a dramatic effect in the other game, for example). I know it's hard to tell from our current story hour situation, but there was a time when my players feared of ever getting a +2 weapon, or even an enchanted weapon for each party member...let alone enchanted armor.

 

[hong]

As it was, she did 164 points over 7 attacks while hasted, using the full feat chain for archers, (including being an AA) many shot and scored a series of critical hits with a bow using elementally charged arrows.

Damn, now I feel positively inadequate.

 

[shilsen]

Throwing my hat in the ring

Although I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me about this, I think it's acceptable that archers should do more damage than melee combatants.

The archer has two (related) things going for him: Ability to attack at long range & a chance to get a full attack off very often. The melee combatant has a lot more versatility, with access to all sorts of combat maneuvers, the ability to threaten an area around him and take AoOs, & no problems regarding ammunition, etc. The melee combatant can disarm, trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, cause subdual damage, etc. In comparison, the archer is a one-trick pony. He causes damage and that's all he's got. So not surprisingly, comparisons between the two based purely on hitting & causing damage (which are the vast majority of comparisons in this thread) make the archer seem overpowered.

Neither the archer nor the melee tank is completely self-sufficient. Each fills in aspects that the other lacks, and neither will overshadow the other in a campaign which has some variety in the type of challenges faced. YMMV.