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="Petrosian" data-source="post: 503420" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>Yes. it says i am willing to treat even those type of comments as if i thought they had some merit, as opposed to just insulting the poster for making such.Wow! Really? Nah! So, other than storking your own bitterness, is there any point to your attacks?Even in the 15th level example i posted above, the net difference was +4. For the cases where you cannot avoid the straight thru cover AND where the target is not larger than the intervening PC, then the +4 brings them back to even to-hits except for the archer getting an extra Swing at his highest BAB. if you go with TWF, you get another -2 against the fighter AND lower strength bonus on most swings.i do not think your "statictically" means what you think it means.In truth tho, the value of +4 damage per attack that hits" vs "one extra attack" is very dependent on the Ac vs to hit difficulty. However, since the extra attack is at the highest BAB and the experience i have shows that is the most likely to hit, I still come out ahead for archers.If you also factor in the "ranged means easier to get full attack" so that you expect that the archer will get say 2 rounds per fight where he uses full attack to the melee fighter's standardb attack, then it should become a no brainer.That is a nice claim. A wonderful theory. however, what we keep seeing is you making claims and then saying everyone else has proved it.This means that, your claim is worth exactly the paper it is printed on.Some people see what they want to see.Most of my examples are generic, not specific.For the thoughts about scenario settings, i gave a good couple of posts about that above. The most oft mentioned examples were cover at range so the archers cannot get LOS, obscurations such as fog cloud to prevent LOS, extreme winds and various nondamaging attack options. You can read my full comments above but...cover at range... the melee fighters will do much worse against ranged opponents than the archers do. (DUH!!) If the archer cannot see neither can anyone else. he is no worse off than the melee guy here. if a melee fighter can get to melee it seems the archer can get to 30' shooting range.obscuring mists and the like... these do allow the melee fighter to fight with 20% miss and thwart the archer. However at the same time they thwart all the other non-melee characters. The wizard and the rogue are also fairly hosed. So as a scenario balancing tool, this one seems to go out the window. it might be great for propping the melee fighter up, but at the expense of everyone else, not just the archer. this is a baby-with-the-bathwater solution. besides, from my experience, fog clouds do not last long. Someone either dispells it (so their spellcasters can take action) or it is busted as a side effect of some other attack, like fireball. Sunder... as effective against many melee weapons and regardless not an option for a great many foes... as your typical dragon bite cannot sunder a +5 bow ever.Grapple... well grappling seems really good for some monsters and anyone who is good at it probably gets it for free with no AoO, so i dont see how this is significantly worse for the bowman.etc...Anyway, responding to your ...ahem..."serious" attempt at making a point has been illuminating but, i think you and i have covered the ground that we can. Thank you for being so informative, if about you if nothing else, and helpful.enjoy your games.[/QUOTE]

Verification