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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdavis" data-source="post: 733888" data-attributes="member: 8704">By that same arguement much of this entire board is silly too. There is thread after thread of indepth discussion on D&D around here, Paticularly in the rules forum.  Silly isn't neccessarily a bad thing, beats the heck out of doing real work.Have we gotten to the point that we all pretty much agree that the stacking bonuses seem to be the problem here? I don't care for Greater Magic weapon being used on 50 arrows nor do I care for bags of holding with 500 arrows in them but that's not what the balance problem is, the problem comes down to the fact that a +5 bow and +5 arrows makes a +10 weapon in terms of ability to hit and damage done. If the bonuses didn't stack then you would have a +5 to hit and a +5 to damage, just like a melee fighter with a +5 sword. If the bonuses don't stack then the situation becomes much more balanced and basically a non issue.Oh and yes this is a engineering problem, combat strategy is just another variable. The example was just to show damage comparisons under optimal conditions, the whole rest of the thread has been discussing non optimal conditions. One of the things that I see that is being overlooked is the fact that what monster in their right mind is going to charge past the guy hitting it in the head with a sword to chase after a archer 50 feet away, that would just put the melee fighters at your back, and that is just plain bad tactics. Taking out the archers first just isn't always that feasable, he is at a distance, the guy in front of you is bashing you in the head. The only way this is important is if the monsters/NPC's plan the attact to take out a archer first, otherwise it is just busting heads. Did anyone se the "Conquest" show on archers? that gave a good real life example of how archery worked in real battles.</blockquote>

Verification