Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 733431" data-attributes="member: 5137">I thought the only question about sundering was whether or not its magical bonus applied for being sundered?My rule: Treat it as a weapon. The magical bonus applies. A +5 bow will tend to be sundered by a +5 sword, however, and if the archer has GMW, so does his sundering enemies.Is sunder needed to balance archers? No, not really. It's just one part of the overall tactical options available.Archers are best at dealing lots of damage to small numbers of opponents at a distance. They can be defeated by charges, sundering, and other "close-in" melee tactics.Melee fighters are best at wiping out hordes of lesser foes, and pretty good at soaking punishment from more powerful opponents at close-in fighting.Together, a melee fighter can keep a foe occupied while the archer plinks the foe to death. Against each other, the fighter will tend to try to close in while the archer tries to maintain his distance - which one succeeds at this movement ballet will determine who wins the fight.IMO, that's balanced.Sunder is one of several tactics. Disarm is another. Trip is another. Stunning blow is another. All close-in, where the melee fighter reigns supreme. I mentioned sunder specifically because (A) it's been cropping up in this thread, and (B) sunder is the primary FEAR archers have, and the main reason they'll have to make a tactical decision about bringing out the bow or not, based on the enemy.Please see my comments, above. There are disadvantages to playing an archer, and there are reasons why an archer is useless without a fighter to keep the enemy off his back. But I consider those incentives for a team to work together and focus on different specialties, rather than a disincentive to play an archer.That's the same philosophy I approach my story hour with - the side that works together, wins together.I would agree... but primarily because spell casters are so needed. In a no-magic campaign, 2 fighters, 1 archer, and 1 rogue would work quite nicely. As it is, the archer can't afford to specialize in archery early on, until the 1 fighter reaches a point where he can literally hold off an army.</blockquote>

Verification