Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 499018" data-attributes="member: 3139">Everyone saying that the melee characters in my specific campaign are ineffective and the archers are effective due to player and/or DM error is acting on incorrect assumptions. (Which I understand is partly my fault for not being entirely accurate or precise. Also, we all have different experiences that we bring to this discussion.) 1) This is not the only example I have of archers dominating the game. This is just the most recent. 2) Regardless of the actual statistics of the melee characters, the archers would dominate most battles. This is because the archers kill everything that is remotely a challenge in 2 to 3 rounds. If the DM makes the encounters harder, one false step would cause a TPW. (Which almost happened at a lower level when the DM threw a Tsuno, some ogres and some orcs at us.) Any melee character, regardless of the situation would get torn up just because they must get in melee combat. That means that we must maneuver ourselves as close to the bad guys as possible. The melee characters run to the front and get subject to attacks up the wazoo. 3) In order to use Ambidexterity, a character must have a Dex of 15+. The example character has a Dex of 16, and has a mithral chain shirt because he is looking ahead to eventually getting a 22 Dex with a +6 enhancement bonus, which will max out the Dex bonus to armor. A mithral breastplate, though it gives an extra armor point, doesn't allow a +6 dex modifier (Which he is eventually going to get anyway. Also, Dex as AC is generally better, IMHO, as it helps protect against touch attacks. And his initiative is generally good enough to avoid flatfootedness.)Also, although it would be far superior for the above character to use a double bladed sword and armor spikes or a greatsword and armor spikes, that is not the point. It's not that the character doesn't hit often enough, it's that he is never given the chance to hit in the first place. On the off chance he does get to hit, normally the bad guy is already so weakened by the archers that one or two hits drops the enemy anyway. 4) The reason why I don't want counters is because most counters that work against archers also work against melee characters. Sunder, disarm, grappling, concealment, cover, spells, and what have you are all ways to counter both archers and melee characters. That's why I don't really need them. Counters really are a moot point.Specific counters that effect only archers and not melee characters are also rarely seen in combat. (Having every intellegent monster wielding a tower shield is a little lame.) 5) I agree that archers tend to have more trouble in dungeons. In a 5' corridor, an archer is hampered due to cover and the inability to maneuver. (This is lessened somewhat due to a wise selection of feats. Also, cover really isn't that big of a deal, since archers have obscene attack bonuses to hit.) 6) DnD a team game. Sure. But there are other games that have a team mentality that do not have obscene statistics for archers. (My personal favorite is 7th Sea.) Just because I am annoyed at archers does not mean I dislike the team mentality. Notice that I haven't brought up any other class. I haven't said that wizards, clerics, druids, rogues or anything else is too powerful. I am specifically bringing up archers because I feel that they have little to no downfall as compared to melee characters.</blockquote>

Verification