Personal Experience

[Skaros]

Again, you have to give me specifics of a scenario, and I do mean specifics.

Also, if one person overshadows a party it usually isn't the rules fault it is the dm's fault. It's the dm's fault for letting it get like that. One character shouldn't overshadow an entire party, they should all have their moments and their things that they are good with. The rules make this perfectly attainable. It all just falls into the dm's hands.

Berk, I don't think anyone disagrees with the spirit of your statement here, but the item open for discussion is how much more difficult is it to keep the archer from overshadowing the group than say, the cleric or the mage or the rogue?

I'm on the fence, personally, but would love to here more debate about this.

-Skaros

 

[Skaros]

Berk,

How do tatics help if they same manuvers work on melee types? As a DM, I can destroy any party, and I don't even have to think hard about it.

Now, how do you propose I use "tatics" to prevent an archer from overshadowing the rest of the party, without stooping to targeting them specifically? If I don't like mages, I don't invent a weed that produces an antimagic field (well, actually I do, but it is a campaign specific plant). If one person overshadows a party, the rules that allow them to do it should be modified. This way, I won't have to modify every other encounter to screw archers.

Here's my question for you LokiDR:

Why is it particularly cheesy for the DM to target archers? Isn't it fairly common practice to, for instance, target mages before grunt fighters?

I'm not sure whether I'd like to see rules changes to keep archers out of the limelight a bit more or not. On some level it makes a lot of sense to me that foes would fear the bow...in real-world history (not necessarily applicable) its a pretty fearsome weapon that could turn the tide of battles.

It seems to make a lot of sense for creatures to seek the fastest means possible to eliminate ranged weapons. Again, not a perfect analogy, but if I had to fight 2 guys, and one had a gun while the other had a sword, I'd make sure the gunman was targeted first....

-Skaros

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Easy!...

Does this mean that you can sunder the haft of a magical axe with a non-magical weapon, because the haft is less a part of the axe?

Of course not. A magical axe is a melee weapon, so you'd need a weapon just as magical to affect it.

A bow is neither a ranged weapon nor a shield...

-Hyp.

 

[AuraSeer]

For example when a player moves his fighter figure up to the orc on the left how many times is that player actually thinking that it has some strategic logic behind it? All in all I'd say most likely not.

This may be a quirk of your gaming group. Most of the gamers I know plan their tactics very carefully. Some even go so far as to plan out specific maneuvers or spell combinations for particular kinds of encounters, like a football team writing their playbook. (One actual exchange: "That's a Gargantuan dragon with a cone-shaped breath weapon. Time for combat plan D9." "Look out, it has hatchlings! Go to plan D12!")

Sure, there are casual gamers who just want to charge in and kill stuff, but IMX they represent a minority of the hobby. Go to any convention or gaming store and take a look for yourself.

Yep, I got a brother that's been doing this for 6 years longer then me, that makes 20 years, and tons of friends that have been doing this for even longer. Even have friends that are in the business that have been playing the game for 25+ years.

Is that supposed to make you special? You and your friends started N years ago, so everyone else should uncritically accept whatever you say? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Lots of people have been gaming for at least as long as you have. Some of us have been gaming longer than you've been alive. Mere length of experience does not give a person's opinions any kind of weight. If you want to convince anybody, try offering some evidence, or at least an argument.

 

[Ranger REG]

I didn't say that they are weak per se. Just completely over rated. And the main reason for that is as Ranger REG said, people don't think enough in tactical terms.

IME, most game sessions I have been involved with tend to be melee one-on-one, and when monsters are presented, they simply say "I take monster #1, you take #2,..." and so forth. It's like we're supposed to pair up and fight. They don't take advantage of the terrain it may offer, or use teamwork.

Even when fighting a large creature that no one person could not defeat, they just go up to creature like a pack of kobolds. And the PCs have Intelligence scores of 15+.

Remember, this is a role-playing game, so play the role of a person involved in a hostile situation. What would you do? Do you simply go up to your opponent (relying on skills, expertise & weapons) and to see who wins out? Or do you find an advantage?

 

[Berk]

This may be a quirk of your gaming group. Most of the gamers I know plan their tactics very carefully. Some even go so far as to plan out specific maneuvers or spell combinations for particular kinds of encounters, like a football team writing their playbook. (One actual exchange: "That's a Gargantuan dragon with a cone-shaped breath weapon. Time for combat plan D9." "Look out, it has hatchlings! Go to plan D12!")

Sure, there are casual gamers who just want to charge in and kill stuff, but IMX they represent a minority of the hobby. Go to any convention or gaming store and take a look for yourself.

My own groups would plan things that much before we did anything. We always had backup plans for whatever we did. Most convention and gaming stores don't really have many people playing DND. Least not to the hundreds I've been to all along the east coast and the mid west. Most of the people play mage or warhammer or some other strategy, yes strategy, games.

Is that supposed to make you special? You and your friends started N years ago, so everyone else should uncritically accept whatever you say? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Lots of people have been gaming for at least as long as you have. Some of us have been gaming longer than you've been alive. Mere length of experience does not give a person's opinions any kind of weight. If you want to convince anybody, try offering some evidence, or at least an argument.

No it isn't supposed to me make me special in any way. I was just stating the depth of my own personaly experience and the depth of the personal experiences of all the people I associate with. I was just letting Petrosian know this because he seemed to think I had a very limited experience with dnd in general since he had a longer experience and one of his friends had an even longer experience with it.

 

[LuYangShih]

Question: Are Clerics the most powerful core class? Yes. Can the DM prevent them from overshadowing the rest of the party if they are min-maxing their character to be extremely effecient? Yes. Does that mean the Cleric is not the most powerful core class? No. And the same applies to Archers.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Easy!...

Of course not. A magical axe is a melee weapon, so you'd need a weapon just as magical to affect it.

A bow is neither a ranged weapon nor a shield...

-Hyp.

If you believe the resistance to weapons of lower enchantment extends to bows, then the question is, can a person target the bowstring. If they can, is the bowstring protected in the same way the bow is?

I will assume that you meant melee weapon, because a bow is a ranged weapon. Is your interpretation about ranged weapons the offical one? I am still hesitant to break exquipment that can not be replaced without a lot of effort.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy!...

I will assume that you meant melee weapon, because a bow is a ranged weapon.

Gah, you're right, and I did

Is your interpretation about ranged weapons the offical one? I am still hesitant to break exquipment that can not be replaced without a lot of effort.

It uses official rules. It's open to debate, though.

The FAQ states that an attack on a bow does not use the "Strike a Weapon" rules, but the "Attack a Held Object" rules.

Enhancement bonuses adding to the hardness and hit points of a weapon, and giving it immunity to lower enhancements, are part of the "Strike a Weapon" rules.

Since bows don't use those rules, they don't apply to magic bows.

Simple, innit?

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Here's my question for you LokiDR:

Why is it particularly cheesy for the DM to target archers? Isn't it fairly common practice to, for instance, target mages before grunt fighters?

I'm not sure whether I'd like to see rules changes to keep archers out of the limelight a bit more or not. On some level it makes a lot of sense to me that foes would fear the bow...in real-world history (not necessarily applicable) its a pretty fearsome weapon that could turn the tide of battles.

It seems to make a lot of sense for creatures to seek the fastest means possible to eliminate ranged weapons. Again, not a perfect analogy, but if I had to fight 2 guys, and one had a gun while the other had a sword, I'd make sure the gunman was targeted first....

-Skaros

I see mages being elimated because of instant death spells and area of effect spells. They are also seen as having a lot lower HP and lower AC (by a lot). Archers might have slightly lower AC, and slightly lower HP (lower con), but they aren't the easy targets mages could be.

Clerics are a problem themselves. The scaryist thing I have seen is an archer cleric. He can buff his own arrows, bow, armor, and buckler. Add Divine Power, and fighters look pretty mediocre. Clerics are a different rant altogether though, one which I don't want get off on.