What the **** is WotC thinking?

[Hypersmurf]

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

Amen

-Hyp.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

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.

What about the +5 whip?

 

[hong]

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.

Nah, Hyp is just trolling again.

See, Hyp is one of those players for whom the game world is defined solely by reference to the rules. The rules constitute an abstract system within which agents take actions, and the consequences of those actions are decided by application of the rules. Other examples of abstract systems can be found in areas such as pure mathematics, formal logic and statute law. It's from the last example that we obtain the common epithet "rules lawyer", although I prefer the term "logically correct".

Note that an abstract system exists in isolation of things that it might be applied to (once it's applied, it ceases to be abstract). Therefore, concepts such as "verisimilitude", "common sense" and "realism" are foreign to the logically correct gamer, because these concepts rely on comparing the outcome of the rules to an outside world. The logically correct gamer refuses to rely on this intrinsically vague and unsatisfying strategy, preferring the clarity and formality of a purely abstract system. Algebra, in other words.

In fact, the logically correct gamer can do without such things as fluff and flavour text entirely, because these are irrelevant to the abstract system (remember that it's only the rules themselves that count). Recall that in algebra, the truth value of a statement like "x = 5" is independent of what particular symbol we use on the left-hand side of the equals sign. We could use "y = 5" or "papa_smurf = 5" and the statement would still stand. Similarly, the logically correct gamer knows that the utility and meaning of a ruleset is independent of such fluffy labels as "fighter", "weapon", "spell", "level" or any of the other English words that mar the elegance of the D&D rules.

Here are some example passages from the PHB, translated into logically correct algebra:

5f | >= 5f == NULL
AoO: thr & {<->, ! thr} & >= 5f -> AoO

StrW : MeA | Sl, Bl, AW >= DW-1
1. AoO
2. R = Atk x Atk
3a. R > 0 : Dmg - Hd
3b. R <= 0 : END

Arm : It[Arm] != NULL
Mnk & Arm -> WisAC <- 0, MnkAC <- 0, All Atk[MnkA] | MnkA <= RegA <- Atk[RegA], Atk[MnkA] | MnkA > RegA <- NULL, Mov <- Mov[Base, Enc], ASF% <- ASF[Arm]

As you can see, this system has unlimited potential to clear up the nasty ambiguities and irregularities that continue to plague Dungeons and Dragons.

HTH!

 

[jerichothebard]

Regardless, my point - and that of a few other posters, as well - is that you left out a lot of balancing factors. Such as the extra feats a melee fighter may have spent where the archer took Precise/Point-Blank/Rapid Shot, instead.

Like, say, Cleave, Great Cleave, Supreme Cleave, Super Cleave, and Uber Cleave (Ok, I made those last two up.) Here - take an extra four attacks at these other guys just standing around - at NO penalty!

Having seen the 10th level Barbarian in my group decimate entire squads of orcs like they were cream-filled puff pastries, I put my money on the fighter. Especially if he has an archer covering his move!

(Although I will admit to a little bit of shock when the 5th level archer in my other group dropped an NPC Fighter with a GOOD HP score in one round. Disclaimer: the player in question rolls better than anyone I have ever seen in 15 years of gaming. Rapid Shot, two arrows: nat. 20, nat. 20 AGAIN to prove, 20 AGAIN for the second arrow, and 17 to prove. Then rolled nothing below a 6 on 6d8 for damage, with a +1 bow. Disgusting. His character is fifth level (Rng 4/Ftr 1)and has almost 70 HP, with only a +1 CON bonus, and I have WATCHED every roll.)

I'm up too late again.

good night.
jericho.

 

[Ondo]

Notes:
Stacking Bow + Arrow enhancements: DMG, p.183, last paragraph, "Unlike most enhancement bonuses, but similar to the way in which armor and shields work together, the enhancement bonuses of magic ranged weapons and magic ammunition stack for attack and damage purposes."

It's been reported that shields will give a shield bonus instead of an armor bonus in 3.5. Given that these were the only two examples (I think) of bonuses that don't normally stack doing so in a particular situation, I don't think it would make any sense to eliminate one and leave the other in. It seems likely to me they'll change the way ranged weapons and ammunition bonuses stack as well.

 

[Cyraneth]

Maybe the biggest disadvantage of being an archer is the possibility of running out of arrows, and if you're not an arcane archer, buying one or more new quivers of +5 arrows after each adventure could get quite costly...

Just a moment's thoughts.

- Cyraneth

 

[Hypersmurf]

Maybe the biggest disadvantage of being an archer is the possibility of running out of arrows, and if you're not an arcane archer, buying one or more new quivers of +5 arrows after each adventure could get quite costly...

In a world of Bags of Holding and Wands of Greater Magic Weapon, though, those disadvantages are minimised.

A Wand of +5 GMW works out to 675gp per 50 arrows, or 13.5gp for a +5 arrow.

Costly? Not as much as it should be

-Hyp.

 

[Spatula]

yah, Greater Magic Weapon's duration and ability to affect 50 arrows at once, combined with the extreme price of magic arrows, means that you'll never even buy magic arrows, much less run out of them. Makes the arcane archer kinda pointless in a balanced party.

 

[seasong]

Like, say, Cleave, Great Cleave, Supreme Cleave, Super Cleave, and Uber Cleave (Ok, I made those last two up.) Here - take an extra four attacks at these other guys just standing around - at NO penalty!

From earlier posts:

originally posted by seasong
I have never seen a fighter fail to take Cleave and Great Cleave, and I've rarely seen a situation where felling an opponent does not immediately result in an extra attack for Mr Melee, as opposed to fewer attacks.

Originally posted by seasong
Against weaker opponents, the fighter starts to outdo the archer in damage per hit (without actually reducing chance to hit), and 5 attacks per round PLUS cleave attacks really starts to add up. And really, this is where the melee fighter shines: against hordes that would easily overrun the archer.

Did I miss anything else?

Seriously, I don't personally think that the archer is that unbalanced. I think that stacking bow & arrow enhancements is unbalanced. Even without that, the archer can do more damage per round than the fighter, but not as grossly so, and this is mitigated by the lack of cleave, the effects of sunder, and the fact that archers, like spell casters, tend to get jumped first.

 

[Petrosian]

"Seriously, I don't personally think that the archer is that unbalanced. I think that stacking bow & arrow enhancements is unbalanced. "

We are very close to each other in position.

The biggest thing I see in the archer's favor and that seems very wrong is the stacking of bonuses. Fix that by making it normal "use best only" or dividing them into "bow to hit and arrow for damage" IMo will almost completely make this a non-issue.

In addition to that, I would also want to see rapid fire turned into two feats, akin to TWF, whenre the first feat gives the extra attack with a -5 and the second feat reduces it to a -2. However, I have to say that without the stacking this is a small issue, more one of s consistency glitch than an imbalance. Also, if they follow some of the other game leads and merge TWF and ambi into one feat, then this is not needed.

Where we differ is on sundering. One printing of the rules (PHB) implies this "bows are like jewelry" approach to sunder but the other (SRD) does not come close, since its layout is different. The sage reference to strike object make ssense in the context he gave it, how to determine IF YOU HIT, but to then extrapolate that into also meaning to change how you damage weapons is a broad stretch from what he said, especially since the interpretation relies soley on a layout issue that only exists in one set of the rules not both. It also comes into play in the case of weapons "held" and not wielded, as the sage's reference to "use strikle a weapon" would also be applicable, iirc, to a "halfling carrying greatsword" and amazingly the "bows are jewelry" proponents now wants to create yet another interpretation which says its not based on what type of to-hit roll you use but based on what type of to-hit roll you could use in other circumstances, or somesuch, to say that even if the greatsword is attacked as a "using the strike object" it still gets to retain the "strike weapon" enhancements because in other cases you could have used strike weapon and so forth. Heck, even Hyp with his pseudo-trolling still seems to be just toying with the rules to consternate the others because he trouts this interpretation out regularly but seems to keep staying away from saying "and i support it" leaving it as an "if i were to defend it..." or something similar devil's advocate statement.

IMO, IF, in order to maintain balance, you need to hack bows, enchanted bows which cost as much as enchanted swords, to pieces with enough frequency and regularity to make the sunder interpretaion relevant at all, then that is a sign of imbalance to begin with. Some tools are frankly too blunt or have too many side effects to be palatable to use frequently enough to matter.

In short, if the major keys to balancing an archer all fall into the category of "dont let him be an archer in play" as in the various "break his bow a lot" or "make his bow fragile" and "don't let him archer situations" and so on, then you are not actually balancing the archer at all, just providing ample disincentives to players actually playing one.

All this IMO and IMX.

PS... The comment i think made great sense was the one that observed the impact PARTY SIZE would have. In a four man group, there are going to be situational difficulties in getting the "wall o' melee" in front of you. My DND group size is varying from 6-7 typically, and in the current group we have a dwarf fighter and human barbarian as the "front line" and the archer type onlt fills in for melee when he needs to, most often he is as safe and cozy behind the lines as the mages are. The rogue also plays archer when he can, only moving to melee if he needs flanking (for instance, against guys who can see invisible thus eliminating his ranged sneak attacks.) If this were a party of four, the need for a front line would probably negate the ease of archery from safe positions to a large degree.