WattsHumphrey
First Post
Heya, LokiDr.
I'd like to note that I'm the Cleric/Archer in question. I don't have any Archer specific PrC's, so this whole debate may just stem from a 'clerics are broken' debate, but I'm going to assume not so we can continue discussing it.
I think there are ways to beat an archer. I think there are ways to beat a fighter. But I'd never played an archer before this one, and I have to agree that I think it's more powerful than most (if not all) of the group.
I agree with most of the reasoning presented here.
Breaking weapons is an efficient way of getting rid of... well, just about any person using weapons. But most GM's in my experience have not wanted to destroy weapons. This may be because it is rude, or it may be for the same reason that most PC's I see don't destroy weapons: then they don't get them after combat.
Perhaps tactics are a good way to get rid of an archer. But I haven't seen a tactic yet that will keep my archer from nerfing a combat simply by being there. Moving in and out of cover is the most convienient way, but without Flyby/Spring attack, this isn't as efficient as it's cracked up to be. Plus, hiding from the archer often allows oneself to be open to other attacks (area of effect, etc). Essentially, I either unbalance the combat through damage or through forcing the BBEG into a corner that everyone but me can reach.
I think the problem is not that archers are invulnerable, but that the benefits of an archer outweigh the drawbacks by more than most other classes. Everyone is weak to good tactics... but it's harder to do good tactics on an archer. Everyone is weak to certain spells... but it's harder to get in range and live with an archer. Everyone (that uses a weapon) is weak to sundering... but you have to get closer to an archer. Everyone can get good bonuses to attack... but it's easier on an archer.
So to clarify, I think the problem is not the inability to hurt archers, but the relative difficulty that hurting archers comes at.
I'd like to note that I'm the Cleric/Archer in question. I don't have any Archer specific PrC's, so this whole debate may just stem from a 'clerics are broken' debate, but I'm going to assume not so we can continue discussing it.
I think there are ways to beat an archer. I think there are ways to beat a fighter. But I'd never played an archer before this one, and I have to agree that I think it's more powerful than most (if not all) of the group.
I agree with most of the reasoning presented here.
Breaking weapons is an efficient way of getting rid of... well, just about any person using weapons. But most GM's in my experience have not wanted to destroy weapons. This may be because it is rude, or it may be for the same reason that most PC's I see don't destroy weapons: then they don't get them after combat.
Perhaps tactics are a good way to get rid of an archer. But I haven't seen a tactic yet that will keep my archer from nerfing a combat simply by being there. Moving in and out of cover is the most convienient way, but without Flyby/Spring attack, this isn't as efficient as it's cracked up to be. Plus, hiding from the archer often allows oneself to be open to other attacks (area of effect, etc). Essentially, I either unbalance the combat through damage or through forcing the BBEG into a corner that everyone but me can reach.
I think the problem is not that archers are invulnerable, but that the benefits of an archer outweigh the drawbacks by more than most other classes. Everyone is weak to good tactics... but it's harder to do good tactics on an archer. Everyone is weak to certain spells... but it's harder to get in range and live with an archer. Everyone (that uses a weapon) is weak to sundering... but you have to get closer to an archer. Everyone can get good bonuses to attack... but it's easier on an archer.
So to clarify, I think the problem is not the inability to hurt archers, but the relative difficulty that hurting archers comes at.
