Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 296729" data-attributes="member: 307">No, it isn't. You just haven't thought this through.Since metamagiced spells pretty much suck for Sorcerers (as they take a full round action to cast for them), I'm not sure where you get the idea that Sorcerers are "metamagic specialists". I have never seen a Sorcerer cast a metamagiced spell, the cost in actions is just too high.Or don't know what they are doing.And the last sentence is what makes it not that useful. You have to have the right situation, and the damage is concentrated all at once. Sure that can be useful, but in many cases, your opponents aren't going to bunch up in nice clusters for you as they approach, especially without having your allies intemixed with them.In my experience, an focused archer character almost never misses. For example, the last such character I saw in play:BAB +10Dexterity +3Gloves of Dexterity +2Bracers of Archery +2Magic Bow +1GMW Arrows +3Weapon Focus +1Point Blank Shot (if within 30 feet) +1For a total of +21, +22 if within 30 feet. This becomes +19/+19/+14 using Rapid Shot, better within 30 feet. Compare that to the typical ACs of most CR 10 opponents (for example, a Fire Giant, CR10 Leneraran Hydra or Retriever) and you will find that an archer's shots will almost always hit, frequently only missing on a 1 for his first two shots, and hitting well over 75% of the time on his third.Lots of fireball damage is usually wasted. Against fodder type opponents lots of its damage is completely wasted: say some ogres accompanying that giant your are fighting, or a gang of harpies supporting some demon or something. In those cases, lots of the fireball damage is going to be wasted.Further, the spread of a plain fireball isn't that great. A 20 foot radius is just not that big. Frequently you can get no more than two opponents in the area, maybe three if you get lucky.  This is not such a huge advantage that it offsets the archer's ability to selectively inflict damage.Actually, in many cases, the Wizard shifts the battle towards victory a little bit, and doesn't concentrate his damage enough to take out any single opponents. This is a problem, since eliminating threats early is a huge advantage. The ability concentrate or spread damage is a huge advantage. Archers can do this. A wizard with a bunch of fireballs in his pocket can't.No, because the Wizard's damage is spread over many opponents, while the archer can concentrate his or spread it out. I know that when the last party I saw was confronted with lots of giants, the group quickly figured out that fireball and lightning bolt were virtually useless, but that concentrated archery fire was extremely effective.Well, to put it bluntly, you don't know what you are talking about, primarily because you haven't worked through the problem.Against a dragon's Will save? Please. Now you are talking about fantasies. Or you are fighting things of a lower CR than you should.Virtually irrelevant, since it only gives him a single extra attack. The party I referenced earlier had Haste available for months of game time and used it once or twice. It is nice, but for non-spellcasters it isn't that helpful.They can be, or not. An archer can target things in many different places, the melee fighter cannot, even while hasted, since he has to move between targets. Most combats I have seen involve a lot of maneuver, and foes that are spread out in many cases."Thinking incorrectly"? I guess that's what you come up ith when you don't use the tactic much and don't pay attention.I've seen a dedicated archer fire 48 arrows and miss once. Archery attack bonuses get so high so quickly that it becomes very easy to score incredible hit rates if you fight lots of opponents in your CR range.Or they have pack horses. I remember the party archer would routinely have 200 to 400 arrows packed onto his pack horse (which for a pack horse is a negliglble amount of extra weight). A Quiver of Ehlonna is very helpful here too.[snip silly, unverifiable woofing and puffing about how wonderful the palyers in KarinsDad's campaign are. You are only as good as your opponent, and you may or may not be a good opponent for them, so talking them up is just empty praise on a message board).Proof by popularity is not proof of effectiveness. It is proof of how popular something is. Nothing more.Or you aren't. Perhaps your tactics play into the hands of the "fireball everything in sight" and those of myself and other DMs I have seen do not. Your assumption that your challeneges are somehow superior is unfounded.[snip more silly puffery that out of context is meaningless, and evidence of nothing]They rely on leveraging your specific spells into usable situations. One thing you have missed out on is that the fireball happens once, while the GMW lasts for hours and mutiple combats. It only takes about 15 arrows to equal the typical damage output on a fireball, and the archer has two and a half times more enchanted arrows available if he needs them for a second fight.Assuming your foe has a dipel magic handy and figures out that the archer has some dispellable effect and targets him over someone else and wins the opposed check and doesn't have something better to do, like casting a spell that will deal damage or something. Yes it can be dispelled, but so can haste, fly, slow, cat's grace and all other spells with a duration.I have never seen a fireball come close to taking out a single CR10 opponent in one round. I have seen a dedicated archer do that.Fireball is the quintissential "they can counterattack" spell most of the time. Dire wolves laugh off fireball damage most of the time, giants, monstrous vermin and other types of opponents you are likely to find at 9th-10th level and beyond just giggle when you toss a fireball, and then they make full attacks.Ah yes, the "Backstreet Boys" form of evidence. If someting is popular it must be good, and if it isn't it must not be. Put up a popularity contest. That proves how effective something is, doesn't it? The fact that you would suggest this sort of thing as "evidence" tells me that you are not worth bothering with.</blockquote>

Verification