Personal Experience

[Ranger REG]

* sighs *

I can't believe D&D gamers don't think in terms of tactics.

1. Use cover as much as you can. In fact move between covers. Archer must then resort to using Ready Action, meaning one arrow attack per round.

2. Fight ranged with ranged, use whatever ranged weapon or magical ranged attack to disable the archers, or at least give them some concern. Hold Person spell would help.

3. Keep moving. The faster you approach the archer, the quicker you can disable the archer. Charge attack would help since you can cover twice the distance.

4. Sunder his bow. The best way to disable him permanently. If he spent all his feats toward specializing his archer technique, then he may be a lousy melee fighter.

 

[AuraSeer]

* sighs *

I can't believe D&D gamers don't think in terms of tactics.

I can't believe you think this is simply a tactics question, and are getting snotty about it to boot.

You've pointed out four tremendously obvious anti-archer tactics, which are only applicable in some situations. Taking cover only works if cover exists within reach. Moving to melee the archer can only work if he's in an accessible area (not flying or Spider Climbing out of your reach), and if your speed is equal to his. Using your own ranged weapons is a sure way to lose in almost all cases, since you're a non-archer-type fighting against a purely dedicated archer.

Anyway, that's all beside the real point. Those simplistic anti-archer tactics are basically rules-independent. The question here is about the balance of archers under the 3E rules.

Berk said: "No archer can ever be uber unless someone is cheating." He's claiming that, under the rules, it's totally impossible for an archer to be stronger than other character types. For that kind of absolute assertion, a couple of examples don't count as proof, and neither do simple tactical rules of thumb. If you agree that all archers in all cases must be either weak characters or cheaters, I think it's reasonable to ask what led you to that conclusion.

 

[Berk]

Berk said: "No archer can ever be uber unless someone is cheating." He's claiming that, under the rules, it's totally impossible for an archer to be stronger than other character types. For that kind of absolute assertion, a couple of examples don't count as proof, and neither do simple tactical rules of thumb. If you agree that all archers in all cases must be either weak characters or cheaters, I think it's reasonable to ask what led you to that conclusion.

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. It's the same thing when B.A.D.D. members complain about easy to kill dragons. I do believe most people don't think of the tactical aspects of combat when they are in a combat scenario. The people that I think do think of tactical aspects the most are rogues and mages. Just because mages are usually the artillery that has to avoid friendly fire and rogues want to utilize their sneak attack at every opportunity. Now am I saying this makes the people that don't think of the tactical aspects of the game as bad players? No way in hell do I think that. It's just an observation that I've made from playing for over half my life, since I was 8 (I am now 22 almost 23) and watching others play from since I was 5. Once a week atleast watching people play or playing myself and with a bunch of different players. I have personally lost count a very extremely long time ago of the amount of people that I have played with, either at cons or just pick up games at a store and even with friends that will join in with ongoing games.

 

[Steverooo]

Easy!...

Elimination of an archer by breaking the bow has a few problems:

1) mooks won't have a high enough bonus on their weapons to harm the bow

2) you have to reach the archer

3) I don't like taking away hard earned equipment (especially if it is hard to replace like a fighter's very enchanted primary weapon)

One and three can be easily resolved by simply cutting the bowstring (not the bow).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Easy!...

One and three can be easily resolved by simply cutting the bowstring (not the bow).

There's also the interpretation of the rules that argues that the immunity to weapons of lower enhancement (and the extra hardness and hit points) conferred by enhancement bonuses only applies to melee weapons and shields...

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I didn't say that they are weak per se. Just completely over rated.

Glad you cleared that up. Whew!

And the main reason for that is as Ranger REG said, people don't think enough in tactical terms.

Amazingly, i dont think i have met most people, much less gamed with them, So i will have to just take your word for it.

It's the same thing when B.A.D.D. members complain about easy to kill dragons.

Ahh... even more we dont just understand it-ism.

I do believe most people don't think of the tactical aspects of combat when they are in a combat scenario. The people that I think do think of tactical aspects the most are rogues and mages. Just because mages are usually the artillery that has to avoid friendly fire and rogues want to utilize their sneak attack at every opportunity.

Hmmm... might i postulate a different theory? The tactical maneuverings of mages and wizards are more obvious and thus more observable and noticeable from a glance to a cursory observer, even one as gifted as yourself?

For example, when a player moves his fighter figure up and takes a swing at the left orc in a pair, is it obvious that he moved so that he was set up for a cleave if his strike felled the orc? The cleave may or may not occur but without proper placement AHEAD OF TIME it will not occur much at all.

Another example is the cleric who move up right behind the front line so that he can cast spells at the enemy, cure the front line fighter or step in for melee all at the drop of a hat because he has positioned himself well. heck, he can even cast a cure and step 5' and ready a weapon to take his melee spot because of his positional choice.

of course this isn't as dramatic or as visible as "i get +5d6 more damage" but its still tactics.

It's just an observation that I've made from playing for over half my life, since I was 8 (I am now 22 almost 23) and watching others play from since I was 5.

Cool... i am over 40 and i have been playing for over 20 years... all adult. My fellow player bob is eyeing retirement and makes me look like a young-un.

In my experience, to a large extent the degree of tactical application by the players is directly linked to the degree to which the system makes these things relevent. They play tactics much more when tactics actually matter.

As a result, DND3e, which is only a few years old, tends to ffoster more tactical play.

Its also my experience that tactical applications work fairly well regardless of specific types and nuances. Archers are not more susceptable to "tactical counters" than melee fighter are, just subject to DIFFERENT ones.

Once a week atleast watching people play or playing myself and with a bunch of different players. I have personally lost count a very extremely long time ago of the amount of people that I have played with, either at cons or just pick up games at a store and even with friends that will join in with ongoing games.

How much longer is a "very extremely" long time than just a very long time or an extremely long time?

IMX... the degree to which tactical play is used depends very much on the degree to which it is emphasised in the rules and the game. Players tend to do what they see working that is within character scope.

The catch is, tactical savvy works for and against all character types. The same tactical principles are just as applicable to any "class" or type of fire.

Example: Use cover to prevent archer shots... thats not a tactical principle, thats an execution of a tactical principle.

The principle is "deny the enemy shots while getting them yourself" and its specific application for MELEER vs ARCHER is to take cover and fight from behind cover.

The same principle employed against a MELEE type would involve executions such as firing from range while they close, firing from range from a position they cannot get to, attacking with reach weapons... and so on.

In both cases the idea is to use some feature, whether native to the environment or created by you, to interfere with the enemy's ability to hit you. This can be done easily to either melee guy or archer guy EXCEPT that the archer guy does not need to be close to you. The melee guy does and as such you have more to play with to frustrate him.

Sundering and disarming can be done against fighters with melee weapons though not necessarily as well as they can against archers... ONCE YOU GET TO THE ARCHER... but its harder to get to the archer and if you are moving to get to the archer you have fewer chances than if you are engaging the meleer.

EXAMPLE: After closing 30' (getting past whatever obstacles there are) to the archer you get ONE sunder attampt.

EXAMPLE: While meleeing a dwarven fighter you can simply choose to take your three attacks, one by one, as sunder attempts. One the first one he gets his AoO but then, barring feats, your remaining two are just fine. Three attempts is a very decent chance to nail the WOODEN hafted axe.

I can go on but it boils down to this simple summary... everyone is vulnerable to some good tactics and in certain circumstance can be negated. IMX neither archers or axe wielding barbarians or rogues or mages is any more or less subject to this rule.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Easy!...

One and three can be easily resolved by simply cutting the bowstring (not the bow).

Are you saying that a bowstring is less a part of a bow? 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?

This sounds like an application of the called shot rules the game doesn't have.

 

[Berk]

Glad you cleared that up. Whew!

Glad to see that you are just turning this into child's play.

Amazingly, i dont think i have met most people, much less gamed with them, So i will have to just take your word for it.

Ahhhh, see above.

Ahh... even more we dont just understand it-ism.

Would ya look at that, another see above.

Hmmm... might i postulate a different theory? The tactical maneuverings of mages and wizards are more obvious and thus more observable and noticeable from a glance to a cursory observer, even one as gifted as yourself?

For example, when a player moves his fighter figure up and takes a swing at the left orc in a pair, is it obvious that he moved so that he was set up for a cleave if his strike felled the orc? The cleave may or may not occur but without proper placement AHEAD OF TIME it will not occur much at all.

Another example is the cleric who move up right behind the front line so that he can cast spells at the enemy, cure the front line fighter or step in for melee all at the drop of a hat because he has positioned himself well. heck, he can even cast a cure and step 5' and ready a weapon to take his melee spot because of his positional choice.

of course this isn't as dramatic or as visible as "i get +5d6 more damage" but its still tactics.

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.

Cool... i am over 40 and i have been playing for over 20 years... all adult. My fellow player bob is eyeing retirement and makes me look like a young-un.

In my experience, to a large extent the degree of tactical application by the players is directly linked to the degree to which the system makes these things relevent. They play tactics much more when tactics actually matter.

As a result, DND3e, which is only a few years old, tends to ffoster more tactical play.

Its also my experience that tactical applications work fairly well regardless of specific types and nuances. Archers are not more susceptable to "tactical counters" than melee fighter are, just subject to DIFFERENT ones.

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.

I don't see how 3E fosters more tactical play then any other DND edition.

How much longer is a "very extremely" long time than just a very long time or an extremely long time?

Ahhhh, again, see above all the way at the top. Because we all know, we are all english majors or something and should never foul up with our grammar or spelling.

I can go on but it boils down to this simple summary... everyone is vulnerable to some good tactics and in certain circumstance can be negated. IMX neither archers or axe wielding barbarians or rogues or mages is any more or less subject to this rule.

Did I ever once say that only archers are vulnerable to good tactics? Nope, didn't say that anywhere. I just said that since people think they are "uber", people don't use good tactics on them.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

 

[Berk]

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.

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.