What the **** is WotC thinking?

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't see the point in comparing melee fighters with archers anyway. They're both fighters, they both have access to the same feat list and get the same proficiencies with weapons.

That would be true if there were no multiclassing in 3e. However, in reality, the 16th level fighter archer of the examples we're discussing is an illusion. Archer characters tend to be things like:

Ftr 8/Rog 4/Rgr 2/Bbn 2
or
Ftr 4/Wiz 2/Order of the Bow Initiate 1/Arcane Archer 2/Deepwood Sniper 1
or
Ftr 2/Wiz 2/Bbn 1/Rgr 1/Rog 2/Arcane Archer 2
or
Bbn 1/Brd 7/Arcane Archer 3

While a 16th level fighter would have run out of archery feats to take ages ago and diversified into melee feats as well, most of the other characters will have only a few non-archery feats.

Similarly, while melee characters will often carry a mighty bow, they rarely spend the feats to be competent archers once melee is joined for several reasons:
1. They have more feats available to them and don't run out as quickly.
2. They multiclass almost as much as archers and rarely run out of melee feats to take.

A lot of melee characters look like
Ftr 4/Bbn 1/Rog 2/Rgr 1
or
Ftr 4/Clr 3/Bbn 3
or
Pal 2/Rgr1/Clr 3/Templar 10
or
Pal 2/Rgr 1/Clr 3/Templar 3/Knight of the Chalice 7

Why don't your fighters (meleers) take a few archery feats and buy a bow? Is the dichotomy between those two types that pronounced in your game?

See above. They don't have the extra feats to take the three archery feats necessary to be an effective archer (Point blank, precise, rapid shot). Most do buy a bow though.

Combat starts, everyone shoots until the melee reach them, the meleers change weapons while the archers move backwards to stay out of opponents' reach. The fighter won't deal as much ranged damage but he'll catch up in melee with cleave and power attack. At that time, the archer may be the one having troubles dealing with the opponents.

If the melee fighters catch up in damage due to cleave and power attack is an open question (they'll only catch up if they're very well optimized for two handed weapon combat or two weapon fighting). In any event, this kind of a battle is a rarity for most adventurers. Usually, their careers consist of being ambushed or travelling through dungeons.

A melee fighter complaining that he doesn't deal as much damage than the archer only has his own stupidity to blame. Who would go adventuring in a world filled with savage monsters without a good ranged weapon?

You really don't get it do you? It's not about melee fighters not having ranged weapons. Most do. The point in the damage comparison is that archers are very competitive if not superior to melee fighters in dealing damage in or shortly out of melee range.

I played a pure meleer once and regretted it dearly each time there was some distance between us and the ennemy. I had to charge to start having fun and being a barbarian, I got to melee much too soon. I was often beaten down in the few rounds I had to wait for reinforcement.

I think you're about the only person who thinks that being a melee fighter means not having a ranged weapon. Or that it makes a difference for what we're discussing here.

The answer to all those threads about archery being broken is : diversity. A specialist is a very impressive sight (be it melee or ranged) but as soon as he can't use his specialty (eg: an archer in melee), he is a sorry sight compared to more diversified characters or to oher specialists who see their abilities kick in (eg. meleer).

That's exactly what's in question here. Does the melee specialist in melee compare to the archery specialist? If you ask me, the answer is yes--just barely.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

If the melee fighters catch up in damage due to cleave and power attack is an open question (they'll only catch up if they're very well optimized for two handed weapon combat or two weapon fighting). In any event, this kind of a battle is a rarity for most adventurers. Usually, their careers consist of being ambushed or travelling through dungeons.

I will answer some other interesting points you mentionned but for starters...

When you're ambushed, where's your archer? Right, in melee, ambushed as eveyone else... Hard to shine as an archer in this situation...

What I don't get is how Power attack would be useful for TWF and two-handers only... A +10 damage is a +10 damage, either you are fighting with one weapon or two

You really don't get it do you? It's not about melee fighters not having ranged weapons. Most do. The point in the damage comparison is that archers are very competitive if not superior to melee fighters in dealing damage in or shortly out of melee range.

That's exactly what's in question here. Does the melee specialist in melee compare to the archery specialist? If you ask me, the answer is yes--just barely.

So, since the archer specialist compares (barely or not, he does compare) to the melee, I guess that you'll have to agree with me that ranged attacks are not overpowered? If not, care to explain?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Please note: partial actions are being removed and Haste is being revised in 3.5R, and we don't know what those revisions are yet.

For the moment, please leave out Haste and partial actions.

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunder?

If you want, I can interpret the rules (using PHB and FAQ) for you so you can break the archer's +4 mighty longbow with a rusty handaxe...

It's Lawyerin', but it works.

-Hyp.

go on then...

 

[Hardhead]

Why would you swtich to a melee weapon once enemies closed in?

You can deal more damage with the bow, and it's not like you suffer from AoO for using them in melee. Just take a 5' back before you shoot.

 

[Olive]

You can deal more damage with the bow, and it's not like you suffer from AoO for using them in melee. Just take a 5' back before you shoot.

reach weapons, more than one combatant, gimme time and i'll think of more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunder?

go on then...

I just posted it in another thread, but here you go :

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.

-Hyp.

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunder?

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

You're right, it's lawyering.

Interesting, but rule zeroed before my local rules lawyer notices!!!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I will answer some other interesting points you mentionned but for starters...

When you're ambushed, where's your archer? Right, in melee, ambushed as eveyone else... Hard to shine as an archer in this situation...[/b]

Actually, archers rarely seem to have too much trouble unless they are in VERY close quarters. The five foot shuffle/ full attack routine, fly, melee characters interposing themselves between the bad guys and the archer often enable the archer to be perfectly effective in such situations. The point I was making is that it is very rare for parties to start out at ranges where there is time for sustained archery as groups close. It is much more typical for parties to be in melee by round 2--if not round 1. That doesn't mean the whole party is in melee. It just means that the bad guys can close to melee range by that point making the use of ranged weapons by non-specialists decidedly suboptimal.

What I don't get is how Power attack would be useful for TWF and two-handers only... A +10 damage is a +10 damage, either you are fighting with one weapon or two

Power attack isn't useful only to TWF and THF. It is, however, often overrated in comparisons of average damage. Its primary use are against objects with hardness, creatures with DR that you can't otherwise overcome, very low AC creatures and in standard attack (rather than full attack actions). Since archers have to make much fewer standard attacks than meleers do, power attack makes up for some of that difference but, IMO does not significantly shift the balance when comparing damage/full round attack which is the appropriate way to make the comparison.

Archers deal more damage than single handed single weapon melee fighters with or without power attack. (Rogues with sneak attack are an entirely different question).

So, since the archer specialist compares (barely or not, he does compare) to the melee, I guess that you'll have to agree with me that ranged attacks are not overpowered? If not, care to explain?

Actually I do agree that--at the moment, only using the core rules (and possibly the WotC class books)--archers are not overpowered. (Add Manyshot into the equation and I change my mind. Add any kind of ranged power attack into the equation and I change my mind. Etc.) I was more correcting what seemed to me to be some egregious errors and suppositions than taking the opposite side of the debate.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunder?

Your premise is true but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from it. By the logic of the FAQ (which I agree with BTW), a glaive or greatsword held in one hand (perhaps because the character is drinking a potion or casting a spell (which provoke an AoOs) ) would be a held object rather than a wielded weapon. I don't think that their status as held objects would eliminate their immunity to sundering with a less enhanced weapon, however.

To a similar example, a halfling thief is stealing a +5 Keen Chaotic, Unholy greatsword. The halfling is strong enough to pick it up but cannot wield a large weapon. Consequently it's a held object. As the halfling tries to escape, the guardian of the sword, a paladin wielding a sunblade (+4 vs. evil) charges him. Under your interpretation, the paladin should be able to destroy the +5 keen chaotic unholy greatsword because it is a held object even though he couldn't sunder it if the thief were a human (who could wield it).

That strikes me, quite frankly, as a ludicrous assertation.

I think it is more logical to conclude that the bow IS still a weapon (and is therefore immune to being broken by a less enhanced weapon) even though it is not BEING WIELDED as a weapon. That interpretation doesn't lead to the silly situation with the greatsword described above.

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.

-Hyp.