What the **** is WotC thinking?

[Olive]

Remember EB, that this is an interpretation. I'm not sure Hyp would use it in the game himself.

But strictly, by the rules, he's probably right.

Personally I want to thank Hyp for bringing this maddness to my attention before a player notices...

 

[Hypersmurf]

But strictly, by the rules, he's probably right.

It relies on the concept of rules being limited in scope.

There is a debate going on at the Monte Cook boards at the moment as to whether the "TWF feat applies to range weapons, not melee weapons" rules means all ranged weapons, or just to using two light or heavy crossbows simultaneously, since that's where the rule appears.

People are actually seriously putting forward the opinion that TWF feat will reduce the penalties for using two slings, or a crossbow and a longsword, or anything except two crossbows, because the only place that TWF feat not reducing penalties occurs in the rules is under the description of using two heavy crossbows.

I feel that my argument for easy-sunder bows is almost sensible in comparison

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Your premise is true but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from it.

If I were to defend the conclusion, I'd note that a glaive or greatsword can be used as a melee weapon, and thus qualifies for the Strike a Weapon hardness etc advantages even when it's not being used as such, while a bow cannot.

If I were to defend the conclusion

-Hyp.

 

[jdavis]

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? [/B]

Didn't we already cover this ground with Seasong's work earlier? Wasn't it obvious that the archer was doing much more damage when specialist to specialist were compared. Why that is and what are the balances to that are the questions to ask now. Are bows easier to sunder? are archers less effective in a ambush? I think it was already established that archers have a higher damage potential if they are specialized, what will the up comming changed do to this? Well rounded characters are going to be well rounded, this gets into specialist archers and the new multiattack feat.

 

[Hardhead]

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?

First, Seasong's breakdown clearly shows Archer superiority, I think.

I haven't seen anyone show any comparable math to debate it.

But even if they *did* compare in damage, you'd still have a problem. Archerey should be a trade-off. Archers should deal less damage in exchange for dealing it from far away.

If you can deal X damage from only 5' (or 10' if you get a Spiked Chain) away, or deal X damage from any distance away, which is better?

 

[Petrosian]

FWIW... IIRC...YMMW...etc...

the placement of the enhancement bonus sundering limitations in the strike weapon thing is only in the PHB. The SRD has it placed differently and not linked to the attack weapon thing.

IMO and IMC the rules are not intended to make bows, one handed glaives and halfling greatswords into "jewelry" for how they are damaged.

YMMV.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

EB and all

I guess we simply don't play the same game.

We do have lots of encounters that take place in plains, humongous caverns or rooms.

I've never saw a fighter/thief/sorcerer/OotBI/AA (add any PrC you want). As mentionned in another archery thread, we don't like stacking PrCs. Never done it but some of us may be tempted to take a second one eventually.

Power attack is used against everything that moves, not just objects or DR creatures. Not always mind you (some critters are just too hard to hit to take penalties on your attack bonus) but more often than not.

Archers were often either chased until they got caught and had to fight with melee weapons or were victims of magical attacks. But both archers and spellcasters usually have to fight hand-to-hand (or stop fighting and run) eventually since the meleers will try to reach them as soon as they can.

Don't get me wrong, they are powerul and can dish out very impressive damage. But they are (in my experience, YMMV) easier to take out than meleers (less AC/defensive capabilities, less hps and that is a disadvantage that will not show in your mathematical analysis... In fact, while analysis can be useful, I usually don't rely on them too much to establish balance issues since many factors are forgotten. Not intentionally but there are too many to consider them all.

If your question is: Do archers deal more damage tham meleer, the answer is yes, as established by the different analysis that were posted. I didn't see the point in discussing this further after 3 pages worth of posts already on the subject.

My point was rather that if you take the meleer and the archer both through 10 fights, held in 10 different settings and situations, they'll both have their moments and they'll both be sometimes powerless. Will the archer outshine the meleer at the end, providing both are still standing? That is what remains to be established, in my opinion.

If, as I think, they end up being as useful and interesting to play, where's the balance problem? If no balance problems, why are we even arguing about this?

 

[Regdar]

It relies on the concept of rules being limited in scope.

There is a debate going on at the Monte Cook boards at the moment as to whether the "TWF feat applies to range weapons, not melee weapons" rules means all ranged weapons, or just to using two light or heavy crossbows simultaneously, since that's where the rule appears.

People are actually seriously putting forward the opinion that TWF feat will reduce the penalties for using two slings, or a crossbow and a longsword, or anything except two crossbows, because the only place that TWF feat not reducing penalties occurs in the rules is under the description of using two heavy crossbows.

I feel that my argument for easy-sunder bows is almost sensible in comparison

-Hyp.

It does in other examples of the feats in other WoTC d20 books.

The melee fighter has many more options available to the Archer, Bull Rushing, Sundering, Grappling, Cleaving, Great Cleaving and others

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does in other examples of the feats in other WoTC d20 books.

D&D Books?

'cos they're the only relevant ones.

-Hyp.

 

[Greybar]

The FAQ states that an attack on a bow does not use the "Strike a Weapon" rules, but the "Attack a Held Object" rules.

Rule Zero comments aside, I think this actually makes sense (scary eh?)

A magical longsword has been hardened and sharpened by that magic. It is constantly being bashed into things like dragons, and the magic enhancement accounts for that. It also makes it less vulnerable to sundering.

Is the argument against this rule that a magical bow has similarly been hardened into a super-wood that is designed not be cut by a really sharp sword? I wouldn't think so. The bow has been magically enhanced to be super springy and accurate, not super hard.

Thus, the +5 longbow gets cut to pieces by the +1 longsword.

John