Slings are... wow, really?

[Celebrim]

Does anyone have any comments on sling-specific house rules (feat for extra range, and free reload actions)?

I'm fine with them.

As I said before, I do something slightly different. However, mechanically what I do amounts to almost the same thing.

Under my rules, the sling begins with extended range and the ability to use iterative attacks like a bow. However, using one proficiently requires purchasing an Exotic Weapon proficiency. Because the weapon is 'small' you can also use it with a shield. It therefore makes an excellent skirmisher type weapon once you invest in it.

So you get an effective weapon at the cost of a feat.

Under your rules you can use a sling without spending a feat, but its not that great... it's just not great in different ways than under my rules. However, if you spend a feat you get an effective weapon.

Both seem reasonable to me. And its just different details of how you implement the basic idea of 'if you train with this extensively, it gets awesome'.

Personally, I try to avoid 'turret strategies'. If you upgrade ranged weapons too much, you create a situation where if the party invests heavily in ranged attack capability, it never need worry about the tactical situation - it has an answer for everything. For that reason, I'm skeptical about the utility of upgrade missile weapons too much. Missile weapons will frequently have absolute tactical advantages over melee weapons. If they are comparable in other regards, then melee becomes pointless (see virtually all martial combat since the early 19th century).

 

[Rhun]

but it makes NPC militia unbelievable as threats.

NPC "militia" is not generally going to have a high enough Wisdom to gain any sort of damage bonus under your rule either, because they are like to have a 10 Wisdom. Unless all of your militia are "enlightened" more so than the average commoner.

Run the figures some time. You'll be astonished at just how weak ranged weapons actually are in D&D.

I've got a dedicated archer in a game that consistently out-damages every other character in the party. So, it all depends on your build.

 

[Celebrim]

I've got a dedicated archer in a game that consistently out-damages every other character in the party. So, it all depends on your build.

I once hosted a campaign where the whole party created optimized range combat builds backed up with spell caster battlefield control and proceded to machine gun everything I threw at them in almost perfect safety. The only thing that ever touched them was opponnents with ranged attacks or battlefield control. Nothing else lived long enough to present a real threat.

 

[Greenfield]

I run NPC militia archers as area effect damage. That is, they mass fire and rain pain down into a general area. Exact size of the are depends on the number of archers, and the base damage is tied to their level (as they are better able to concentrate fire.) Then do damage as base - AC of the target, Reflex Save for half.

It's so much easier than trying to roll 50 attacks.

 

[FoxWander]

I've got a dedicated archer in a game that consistently out-damages every other character in the party. So, it all depends on your build.

Could you post a run-down of that characters feats and such, please? Ranged PCs in my games always seem to be not so great and wind up regretting going in that direction.

 

[Celebrim]

Could you post a run-down of that characters feats and such, please? Ranged PCs in my games always seem to be not so great and wind up regretting going in that direction.

Scout + Ranger + Swift Hunter + Improved Skirmish + Manyshot seems to be very popular.

Elven Clerics with the Elf Domain.

Psionic Warrior or Fighter + Order of the Bow Initiate or Peerless Archer

Paladin+Kensai archer builds also seem to be popular.

Factotum + Fighter + Zen Archery

I'm sure there are alot of possibilities many of which I've never heard of.

I've seen optimized builds with theoretical average damage at 20th level of 400+/round. Really, only 70-100 per round per character is sufficient for a party to take down pretty much anything in the game with little or no risk. The heavily optimized builds probably could solo encounters at thier character level. It gets even worse if the player realizes just how broken the hide/spot interaction is under RAW.

 

[Rhun]

I'm sure somebody can make a much more optimized built than this, but this PC is fun to play and rocks all on his own. Order of Bow Initiate is a "sup-par" prestige class that I took solely for the close combat shot class feature. Generally he uses Rapid Shot (from ranger fighting style) + Woodland Archer.

He generally inflicts 30-40 points of damage per round (much more to giants, as he has a giant bane bow and giants as a favored enemy...what can I say, we're playing through Against the Giants). Next level he'll take the Ranged Weapon Mastery feat, which will boost that even more.

Wood Elf Male - Ranger 2 / Fighter 4 / Order of Bow Initiate 2

FEATS
1st Level: Point Blank Shot
3rd Level: Precise Shot
Fighter 1: Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow)
Fighter 2: Woodland Archer
6th Level: Manyshot
Fighter 4: Weapon Specialization (Composite Longbow)

 

[kitcik]

I don't do archer PCs, but people have pointed out to me this and this.

 

[Ashtagon]

If you find yourself with a party of PC shooter builds that routinely mow down enemies, then it's possible you aren't giving them appropriate challenges.

Shooters are best challenged by either enemy shooters. This really should be their standard approach if PCs are shooting back all the time, unless intentionally playing them stupid. The PCs aren't the first kids to have discovered archery, and they won't be the last either.

If the monsters have to be melee types, they should still be played intelligently. In an open field, they are going to know they will be beaten by archers, and will plan accordingly. They are either going to find a better place to launch an ambush from, or build an ambush point. They are monsters, not idiots.

The other thing that will challenge shooter builds is terrain. Decent ranged weapons aren't much good indoors, due to close encounter distances. Low ceilings also mess with archery ranges very effectively -- I impose a maximum range of two range increments per 10 feet of ceiling clearance, half that for thrown weapons (this is a hard limit, imposed by the physics of archery). Forests should also impose significant penalties on ranged attacks due to low branches -- halve or even quarter the range increment value.

But giving a party of ranged specialists melee enemies in an open field is just so one-sided it isn't even a real challenge.

 

[Celebrim]

If you find yourself with a party of PC shooter builds that routinely mow down enemies, then it's possible you aren't giving them appropriate challenges.

This presumes that a DM is supposed to tailor his challenges to the skills and abilities of the PC party.

I don't concur.

I do concur that monsters that are intelligent should be played intelligently. I'm will to stack my ability to play a monster intelligently against pretty much anyones. Nonetheless, I don't design encounters according to what I think is necessary to challenge the PC's. I design encounters according to what I think is the game reality. Locks don't increase their difficulty when a PC takes skill focus. Monsters across the world don't take additional archery skills just because the PC's are good at negating melee attacks. Monsters won't have Energy Resistance (Electricity) up just because the spellcaster is an air elementalist. The monsters will act and plan according to what they know, but I don't metagame versus the players.

But giving a party of ranged specialists melee enemies in an open field is just so one-sided it isn't even a real challenge.

Yes, but I found that under the stock rules, to a missile specialized party, the terrain was largely irrelevant except in extreme cases like a burrowing creature tunneling into a small room such that every place you could stand was in the monsters reach. The 5' step rule and things like multishot made it simply too easy for an archer build to remain in melee range and still out damage a melee attacker. Melee attackers could do some slightly convoluted things like attempt to sunder the bows or take ready actions, but doing so required oppurtunity and planning to do so reduced their options and tended to have costs in the all important action economy.

Melee attackers are much more terrain dependent:

a) Attacker is beyond an obstacle like a moat: Missile just shoots over it. Melee needs a tactical plan.
b) Attacker is at range: Missile just exchanges shots. Melee needs a tactical plan.
c) There is difficult, perhaps slippery, and maybe dangerous terrain between the attacker and the party: Missile just shoots over it. Melee needs a tactical plan.
d) Attacker is flying: Missile just does its normal thing. Melee may be screwed.
e) Attacker is in a defensive position: Missile just fires into it. Melee may be screwed.

In short, my experience with the game is that if you make missile comparable to melee in outcome, all you've really done is obseleted melee.