NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darklone" data-source="post: 502689" data-attributes="member: 1372">No thanks, required, it was a pleasure. Why did I say this? Cause I read too many threads yet that whine that archers are too weak. Sadly the GM hands out items in my games... usually me. That means: No houserules needed. The PCs just don't go shopping for magic.Funny. Someone on the earlier pages showed that a twohanded weapon barbarian/fighter twink is still more likely to dish out more damage. Where are the numbers now?Hehehe. Funny. I could have bet someone would take me real serious and try to argue. Let's go!Once again: I think this thread is silly. I (now) gave a reason for this to explain it to someone who didn't see this by himself. But I do like arguing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Your point buy examples only show that this archer will not hit better than a fighter who puts all into higher and higher strength. Which screws your other examples <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Did I mention houserules? Don't think so. Skip those arguments, they are worthless in this little funny fight of words. You can do better, show me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />As said above, a secondary 18 only means usually that the main stat is not as high as it could be.I don't think it's necessary, but I can happily show you some others threads about how to screw archers who fight in close quarters if you insist.  *LOL*Boy, now this is gonna be fun... you play into my hands with this kind of sentences. Shall I give you the answer why you could possibly find this quizzically <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />?Honest answer: Other threads.Sorry, you can read about other experiences here.Now that may be the first nice words you say. Thanks <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Now on to mounted archers.Do I play Diablo2 dungeoncrawling with tailored encounters that bore my players to death? No. But this only leads to another thread about "Do you customize your encounters or build the world without tailoring the encounters to your heros?" Sorry, I try to make my world alive by avoiding such things. Now you can chime in with houserules and campaign rules. But if my non existant problems with archers root in my way to play with core rules, why would I complain?Horses too fragile? If you get stronger, get better mounts. Never rode a dragon? Or anything else? All those guys here speak about magical treasures like Elminster but every mount is a simple horse. Funny <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification