The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How does this work with dailies recharging after a 6 hour rest but only once a day.

To power a daily power, you need a stronger concentration of mana. These happens rarely. The player gets to decide when.

(Remember, it's not a "rules as physics" of the game-world. It's about transforming the game mechanics to what happens in the game-world.)

 

[Keenath]

Quadruple fail.

The character in question is on the cover of an edition of rules that didn't have any armor-based limitations on how much of his Dexterity bonus he can apply to his defense.

Quintuple super duper infinity plus one fail. ::eyeroll::

Fine, but that doesn't indicate in any way that this is a "heavily armored archer" rather than a "heavily armed melee guy" who happens to be using a bow at the moment. If he weren't wearing a sword and shield I could be convinced that he was an archer, but as is -- he's a bog-standard knight with a bow.

The argument is that 4e fails to support an important archetype, the armored archer, which I dispute being an important -- or even extant! -- archetype.

 

[Storm Raven]

Fine, but that doesn't indicate in any way that this is a "heavily armored archer" rather than a "heavily armed melee guy" who happens to be using a bow at the moment. If he weren't wearing a sword and shield I could be convinced that he was an archer, but as is -- he's a bog-standard knight with a bow.

Sure it does. If he were a melee guy, he wouldn't be wasting his time with a bow, he'd be running into melee with his sword at the ready. His opponent is on the ground, the bow is a much less effective weapon in that edition, and movement rates are so large that he could cover the ground shown in a single round. The only reason he would be using a bow in the circumstance shown is that it is his preferred weapon.

Or he's an idiot.

I'll go with the "not an idiot" solution.

 

[hong]

Why do ppl think that one David C. Sutherland illustration constitutes an "important archetype"?

 

[Storm Raven]

Why do ppl think that one David C. Sutherland illustration constitutes an "important archetype"?

Well, it is Sutherland. And the cover of the blue book edition.

That's probably it.

 

[hong]

Well, it is Sutherland. And the cover of the blue book edition.

That's probably it.

Why do ppl think that David C. Sutherland and one book cover from 30 years ago constitutes an "important archetype"?

 

[Voadam]

PC archers have often been heavy armored tanks in D&D.

Going slower in heavier armor than in light armor is less of a drawback for an archer than a melee character, archers have range while melee characters must get to their foe.

Pre 3e dex bonus to AC is not limited in armor.

Pre 3e the primary reasons for an archer to be in lighter or no armor are if you are a multiclassed or dual classed character who avoids armor for the use of non fighter class abilities.

In 3e straight fighters with their tons of archery applicable feats were the dominant archers IME and heavy armor is still a good way to go even with dex limits for armors and 20' vs 30' move. You have to have a 26 dex before leather armor is a better straight AC option than full plate.

In D&D it has always been wise for combatants to have both a ranged and melee option and characters with multiple weapons (bow and sword and shield for example) are not uncommon IME.

From looking at a picture of a D&D character in armor using a bow with a shield on his back and a sword at his side it is impossible to say from the picture alone whether he is primarily a heavy armor archer with melee weapons or a primarily melee combatant who happens to be using a bow. It can reasonably be either.

 

[Keenath]

PC archers have often been heavy armored tanks in D&D.

Going slower in heavier armor than in light armor is less of a drawback for an archer than a melee character, archers have range while melee characters must get to their foe.

Of course, being at range makes AC a lot less important than for a melee fighter...

Pre 3e dex bonus to AC is not limited in armor.

Pre 3e the primary reasons for an archer to be in lighter or no armor are if you are a multiclassed or dual classed character who avoids armor for the use of non fighter class abilities.

In 3e straight fighters with their tons of archery applicable feats were the dominant archers IME and heavy armor is still a good way to go even with dex limits for armors and 20' vs 30' move. You have to have a 26 dex before leather armor is a better straight AC option than full plate.

Nnnno, it's still +1 worse, because if you have 26 dex, you can still only apply +6 of it to your AC due to the max dex ceiling that you hit back at Dex 22. You'd need padded armor to do that.

Full plate is +1 better than any of the other armors except Padded, which requires a ridiculously high dex. That is to say, if you have the armor's maximum dex bonus, you always have +8 armor bonus, except Full Plate, which is +9.

If you ignore full plate (and a single +1 is rarely worth it in 3e), there's no reason to wear heavy armor when you have Dex 16; a breastplate gives you as good an AC as anything else.

But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor. Like ever. Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that. So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer? Who's the example? What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel? What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?

Sorry. I can't mourn the loss of an archetype that doesn't exist except as a mechanical artifact.

 

[Andor]

But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor. Like ever. Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that. So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer? Who's the example? What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel? What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?

Sorry. I can't mourn the loss of an archetype that doesn't exist except as a mechanical artifact.

Genovese crossbowman wore breastplates which was about as much armour as anyone wore at the time. Samurai were fearsome archers, and wore heavy armour. Most archers wore armour as heavy as was practical. What sometimes made heavy armour impractical were either a need for mobility as with the Parthians, poverty as with all yeoman archers, or climate.

 

[Kichwas]

Then again Daily powers for fighters don't break immersion that much. The circumstances have to be exactly right for that power to work, the enemies have to be placed so, the ground will be just so and God it's tiring. If I did that move one more time I don't know if I'd be able to fight as well afterwards, best not risk it.

1e, 2e, and 3e: Vancian magic to gimp the casters.
Fanbase: Enough with the Vancian already!
4e: Vancian everything to gimp everybody.

1-3E sample fight:

Round 1:
Fighter: wack, wack wack!
Mage: I nuke the universe with a fireball!

Round 2:
Fighter: wack, wack, wack!
Mage: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for tomorrow]

4E sample fight:
Round 1:
Fighter: wack, wack wack!
Mage: I nuke 7 squares with a fireball!

Round 2:
Fighter: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for the monsters to run away long enough for a respawn.]
Mage: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for the monsters to run away long enough for a respawn.]
Rogue: "You guys camping this spawn? Can I join to share quest credit?"