Why Are Archers (still) Bad?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Several times, I've seen people on these forums state that "Archer" is the one archetype that not only doesn't work by RAW, but can't be made to work with any number of splatbooks. (For contrast, "Monk" doesn't work, but "Unarmed Martial Artist" is entirely doable; "Paladin" doesn't work, but "Holy Warrior" does.)

Just from what I've seen, this seems to be the case, and I can understand the most basic reasons why - difficulty of moving and striking, tough to get any significant damage bonuses, etc.

My question is... why hasn't this been fixed? Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few rough outlines for home brew classes that would make archers into a solid Tier 3, and I'm far from the best at home brew. Across so many years and so many splatbooks, why is this still a failure?

It certainly seems like there would be enough impetus to fix it - Archers get plenty of love in heroic fantasy (Robin Hood, Legolas, That One Greek Guy). Seeing as it looks like a well-defined problem that would be easily fixed without breaking the rest of the game... why hasn't it been?

(Sorry if question is a little weird - I've got an academic interest in game design, and would be fascinated to know the reasons/story behind this.)

[Shining Wrath]

It's a good question why WotC has not put the effort into archery.

Giving archers an equivalent to Power Attack would be step #1.
Looking at the list of weapon upgrades for melee and making rough equivalents for ranged is step #2, but not as important.
Step #3, and the hardest, would be a ToB-style class based off of ranged attacks. You'd have to invent new maneuvers and stances in every single ToB discipline that are bow or crossbow centric.

[ericgrau]

No mundane keeps up with shocktrooper. But other than that archer works fine as-is. You trade damage for strategic advantage and more full attacks. Once you get a magic weapon it becomes easier and you can even keep up with damage. I played an epic arcane archer once and accidentally over-optimized my damage output, doing about 450 when the melee were doing 250. Now if the melee were doing 1000+ that would be underpowered instead but in a casual game it was OP. With less optimization I think I would have done 300-350. Part of the 250 on others was because we didn't have any pure melee like barbarians: the melee also had more skills and spells than me. But I was still casting 9s via staffs, mostly for buffs, and was versatile in other ways too. The other part was because epic arcane archer gives you a +10 weapon when others can't afford one unless they blow one of their few epic spells on such a thing.

[Slipperychicken]

Pathfinder added Clustered Shots, which lets Archers not be horribly gimped by DR, and also Deadly Aim, which fixes some of their damage worries. This apparently made them excellent DPS, since they can reliably score full attacks.

One of the things they need is easier damage sources, like adding Dex to damage. Not enough damage really holds them back.


They also can't perform combat maneuvers like disarm, which makes them much less versatile than melee (which is saying a lot).

They are gimped in melee, since their enemies get free attacks if the Archer tries to shoot in melee.

They usually start combat very close to their enemies, where they can't take advantage of their range, and enemies can close the distance within a turn or less.

They are completely gimped by spells like Wind Wall and Protecton from Arrows, and can't do anything about it.

There is very little support for archery -every weapon enhancement is built with a sword-swinger or spellcaster in mind.

[Callin]

I had a Poison Dusk Lizard Folk Ranger 2/ Warrior 2/ Fighter 1/ Combat Trapsmith 5

He rocked btw. Was an Undead Campaign too, Favored Enemy from Ranger 1 and Favored Enemy from Warrior 1 and 2 gave me hellacious bonus damage. Used a small Longbow that added Dex to damage and a quiver that had a permanent Lilandel's Flurry (Relics and Rituals lvl 2 Sorc/Wiz spell) that enchanted each arrow to split into 3 once they were shot. So he put a TON of arrows down range each one hitting like a brick goin at mach 1 LOL. and that was while placing traps down.

[ddude987]

Second the power attack at ranged. Also the problem is that archers don't get an ability mod as static. Dex is their to-hit and if they want flat damage they need money for a composite bow and a strength score to match. Adding dex to damage would greatly increase their effectiveness but I don't think it would make sense logically.

edit: swordsage'd on the dex thing

[Slipperychicken]

Adding dex to damage would greatly increase their effectiveness but I don't think it would make sense logically.


They're hitting more accurately, hitting a better place as opposed to hitting harder. It works the same way as... Sneak Attack, Favored Enemy, Knowledge Devotion, Finesse Weapons, the Archivist ability, etc. The list goes on, and it's a well-established damage source in D&D.

[Callin]

take the Bow of the Wintermoon Relic and deconstruct it and then x1.5 the cost of the match the strength of the wielder and turn it into dex. Dex to damage problem solved.

[Piggy Knowles]

I have a whole compilation of "archers" that work. Most of them can do things other than archery, of course. Some of these include a totemist 20 focused on the Manticore belt, a Wis-focused DMM persist Zen Archer cloistered cleric 1/ranger 2/soulknife 2/soulbow 2/chameleon 10/swordsage 2/warblade 1, and an assassin/nar demonbinder/arcane archer that uses earth dreamer's Earth Sight and Earth Glide alongside a Brilliant Energy weapon to fire inimical blasphemies through walls.

[Axinian]

In Pathfinder they have Deadly Aim, which is literally just ranged power attack.

The problem isn't that archers are ineffective, it's that they require a buttload of feats and large portions of your build to be built around it, whereas being good in melee isn't hard at all. It makes some amount of sense requiring an extra feat or two, but you need so many.

[ksbsnowowl]

Allow two 3.0 prestige classes, and your archer woes will vanish.

Peerless Archer from Silver Marches and Deepwood Sniper from Masters of the Wild.

It wouldn't hurt to allow the 3.0 OotBI from Sword and Fist either; the 3.5 one is worse.

[Talderas]

Most of the major issues with the class are fixed by tanking Hank's Energy Bow, the Bow of Winterhold, or some other similar weapon.

Those fix the first problem for the archer which is damage reduction, pull, and a lack of power attack.

The second problem come from the lack of support with worthwhile prestige classes. They all suck with the exception of Deepwood sniper which forces you into the boring snipe and hide mechanic.

The third problem is that archery feats are horribly synergized. Manyshot doesn't work with rapid shot. Woodland archer tactical feat works way better with rapid shot compared to manyshot. Then there's the practically worthless root feat of point blank shot. Precise shot as a separate feat is bad.

Magical ammunition is just an ugly mess and if you use a bow like hank's energy bow I don't believe you can even use magical ammunition with it.

Tactically archers are superior in theory since they can get more full attack actions. That is what's supposed to offset their low damage. The reality is that too many enemies have a higher movement speed than the archer and it would force him to constantly be moving and losing those full attack actions to avoid generating AoOs just from attacking.

--


I played an epic arcane archer once and accidentally over-optimized my damage output, doing about 450 when the melee were doing 250. Now if the melee were doing 1000+ that would be underpowered instead but in a casual game it was OP. With less optimization I think I would have done 300-350.

What level? 250 seems pretty damn low for a full attack action on a melee even at level 21.

[ericgrau]

What level? 250 seems pretty damn low for a full attack action on a melee even at level 21.

Level 30. We had funky weapon rules that lowered damage a bit, and they may have hit 300 damage at times. Part of the trouble was the high AC of foes I think without the funky rules we'd get another 5d6 per hit times a few hits for 100-200 more both for the melee and for me. Foes tended to have around 500-1000 hp while we had around 400-500. Mind you we had little in splatbooks to boost damage, in spite of having a lot of splatbooks available. That's part of why I overshot the optimization; I thought others would do more with their books.

Ability scores were capped at 40 and you still can't afford much of an epic weapon at level 30, so there's not much damage increase from levels 21 to 30. 300-400 for core or equally optimized melee is pretty normal at level 21, so they were about normal minus the funky weapon rules. And without the funky rules I would have done more damage too.

[Keneth]

My Pathfinder paladin archer pretty much obliterates any evil creature within a round or two and can hold her own in a melee. I killed a CR 10 boss in a single round when she was lvl 9, although admittedly it was an evil outsider and I happened to score a crit.

There's 3 or 4 very decent archer builds in Pathfinder. In 3.5 ... not so much.

[WhatBigTeeth]

It doesn't help that archery tended to either be neglected with PrCs, those PrCs tended to flop in 3.5, or that the best book for "giving mundanes nice thing" neglected actively supporting archery.

Of course, you can still make some excellent archers, even in the T3 space the OP's looking for: Bard, Psychic Warrior and Mystic Ranger nail it; Warblade archers can do very well; the 3rd party but still fairly widely used Marksman (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/marksman) could also fit the bill.

[Eldariel]

Archers are fine but the number of viable archer builds is very limited and requires a lot of work. Warblade Archers work (yes, they rely on a small handful of maneuvers but they get enough out of those to carry them through the gaps in Archer efficiency) but outside that, Archers generally want magic.

Precision Archers need at least Sniper's Shot, spells are the best way to add damage to attacks, etc. If you get Dragon material and 3.0 material, martial archers with Targeteer Fighter, Peerless Archer/Order of the Bow Initiate/Deepwood Sniper and such work just fine. But part of the problem is the lack of Power Shot; To Hit can easily be high enough to hit bruisers but you don't do meaningful damage. Deadly Aim from PF is a godsent.

[Kaeso]

Are archers really that bad? I've heard some good things about cleric archers.

[Karnith]

Are archers really that bad? I've heard some good things about cleric archers.
Well, cleric archers tend to be more about being a cleric who happens to use a bow than being a focused archer.

[Gwendol]

Archery isn't so bad, but it takes some work to make it well.

[ericgrau]

Are archers really that bad? I've heard some good things about cleric archers.
Those are more about how casters can do everything better ("nyah nyah"): How a heavily optimized high level DMM persist cleric can get +2 or +3 more to hit than an unoptimized unbuffed unprestiged core fighter 20. Vs anything else they're actually worse at archery. Including vs an arcane archer, which is obsolete compared to buffing a fighter 20. They aren't actually that great at archery but like Karnith said they do have full divine casting too.

[Telonius]

Personally I've used Warlock (with the names of the class features filed off) as a substitute for Arcane Archer. You could probably fiddle around with the mechanics a bit to get a mundane version of it, that's focused more on hitting multiple targets.

[Greenish]

I'm pretty sure archers can be made to work (as in, non-caster archers that can down any MM monster in a full round). It does require quite a bit of dipping around, since the archery PrCs aren't that hot, but still. If Eldariel ever manages to finish his handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=642.0), expect to see a lot somewhat more archers around.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

I remember doing a build a few months back that used skirmish damage, the splitting enhancement (which is a must for basically any archer btw), and greater manyshot. He was actually able to keep doing constant respectable damage.

[OverdrivePrime]

As others have said, for Pathfinder, there are some fixes that get you part of the way there.

For 3.5, there is the lovely homebrewed Falling Star (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527602/Falling_Star_style:_the_Tenth_Path_of_the_Sublime_ Way) martial discipline.

[JusticeZero]

They can't bring much hurt, and hurt is all a missile person can do. Not hard to fix but they never did.

[Larkas]

Several times, I've seen people on these forums state that "Archer" is the one archetype that not only doesn't work by RAW, but can't be made to work with any number of splatbooks. (For contrast, "Monk" doesn't work, but "Unarmed Martial Artist" is entirely doable; "Paladin" doesn't work, but "Holy Warrior" does.)

Just from what I've seen, this seems to be the case, and I can understand the most basic reasons why - difficulty of moving and striking, tough to get any significant damage bonuses, etc.

My question is... why hasn't this been fixed? Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few rough outlines for home brew classes that would make archers into a solid Tier 3, and I'm far from the best at home brew. Across so many years and so many splatbooks, why is this still a failure?

It certainly seems like there would be enough impetus to fix it - Archers get plenty of love in heroic fantasy (Robin Hood, Legolas, That One Greek Guy). Seeing as it looks like a well-defined problem that would be easily fixed without breaking the rest of the game... why hasn't it been?

(Sorry if question is a little weird - I've got an academic interest in game design, and would be fascinated to know the reasons/story behind this.)

I don't mean to be rude, but both your premises are misguided. Archery does work by RAW, and it has been "fixed" several times (i.e.: stuff that add to the archetype, both 3rd and 1st party).

Just as an example, check this guide (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8756.0). It provides a quick and effective build of a Cleric archer.

- One problem of archery in 3.5 is lack of Power Attack. It has been fixed twice, both with Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) and Pathfinder's Deadly Aim (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#_deadly-aim).

- Another problem is the lack of synergy between the archery feats, and the problem of "useless feat tree" experienced elsewhere in the game, where it makes no sense for there to be two feats to do arguably related things. An easy fix, for example, is to roll Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot into one feat.

- The vulnerability to Wind Wall is a big one. That there is just plain bad design. Some people don't realize, though, that it is a wall, and that you can simply walk through it. That means you can maneuver to shoot around or through it. Some people also forget that there are better uses for 3rd level spell slots. It doesn't mean it won't be prepared, it means it won't be prepared as often.

- The vulnerability in melee is addressed fully by making the bow Elvencraft.

- There are homebrew solutions to a ToB-like archer. See Sublime Way Variant Ranger (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19519074) and both Falling (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10707) Star (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527602) disciplines.

- Zen Archery is a great feat. Greatbows and Bone Bows are great weapons. Splitting is a great weapon ability. There are quite some things that add somewhat to archery as a whole.

- Pathfinder added some neat things to the archetype too. Zen Archer Monk, for example, is quite famous.

Anyways, damage wise, bow users will lag behind uberchargers. But so will everyone else, including casters (Casters kill using means other than HP damage). They do quite a lot of damage, nevertheless, what with being able to full attack more regularly than other characters (other than uberchargers, at any rate). And they are quite maneuverable, specially if mounted.

Archery isn't the strongest archetype in the game. But it isn't weak either. In fact, it is arguably quite good.

Aaaaand I've probably been heavily swordsage'd by now.

[Flickerdart]

Archery in 3.5 is fine...in a way. If archery for you means using ranged attacks, you're golden - throwing buckets of weapons within 30 feet is how you roll. Bow works too, with the same principle. If you want to play a sniper (one shot - one kill sort of deal) you're pretty much out of luck though.

Archery's biggest problem isn't the lack of support. It's that the feat tax for it is so incredibly massive. You can't get anywhere without Point-Blank Shot, then Precise Shot is required not to be gimped as soon as one of your party members tries to fight too, then you need Rapid Shot just to get Manyshot, and need Greater Manyshot for it to be worth a damn...and all this stuff just catches up up to the 1st level pouncebarian.

[SowZ]

Stack Vital Aim, Dead-Eye, and Crossbow Sniper with Hand Crossbow Focus, Rapid Shot, Splitting Arrows, and possibly Dual Wielding, take 3 Rogue levels, (Halfling substitution to get a bonus SA die on ranged,) and Craven, take 4 levels in Targeteer, 4 in Ranger (distracting shot,) then take Peerless Archer all the way up. Get some Haste method and you can easily dish out over a thousand damage a round. Shoot, pick up Weapon Spec. and Ranged Weapon Mastery if you really want to.

[Talderas]

- The vulnerability to Wind Wall is a big one. That there is just plain bad design. Some people don't realize, though, that it is a wall, and that you can simply walk through it. That means you can maneuver to shoot around or through it. Some people also forget that there are better uses for 3rd level spell slots. It doesn't mean it won't be prepared, it means it won't be prepared as often.

Dealing with Wind Wall plays against the strengths that archers are supposed to have, which is offsetting a lower damage with more attacks. Moving around it means at least one standard action. Moving through it means probably just as many standard actions as moving through it plus one and yields a higher chance of stepping into the melee vulnerability issue.


- The vulnerability in melee is addressed fully by making the bow Elvencraft.

How does that even address the melee vulnerability? The vulnerability isn't about being able to do damage in melee range it's about the fact that dealing damage in melee range provokes AoO. Elvencraft just makes you useless by turning you away from your strength (shooting things with arrows) into something which you don't have any feats or development for (fighting with a quarterstaff). The only thing that really deals with the melee vulnerability is the 1st level ranger spell Arrow Mind which prevents you from provoking AoOs with ranged attacks (in addition to threatening adjacent squares with the ranged weapon).


- There are homebrew solutions to a ToB-like archer. See Sublime Way Variant Ranger (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19519074) and both Falling (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10707) Star (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527602) disciplines.

Homebrew is homebrew. That has nothing to do with the lack of support that archery has for official content.


- Zen Archery is a great feat. Greatbows and Bone Bows are great weapons. Splitting is a great weapon ability. There are quite some things that add somewhat to archery as a whole.

Greatbows are only great if you can get proficiency gratas. It's not worth spending a feat for an extra 1 average damage and an extra 20ft of range. Zen Archery is only great to a druid or cleric archer. Splitting isn't just a great weapon ability, it's a practically mandatory weapon ability which makes it bad design.

[Eman Resu]

whats the scoop on Soulbows potential? wis to damage could be nice, Also I read there is a splitting enhancement that "may" apply to soulbow, if so this would increase viability?

Order of the Bow Initiate on first glance adds those d8's?

[Greenish]

whats the scoop on Soulbows potential? wis to damage could be nice, Also I read there is a splitting enhancement that "may" apply to soulbow, if so this would increase viability?

Order of the Bow Initiate on first glance adds those d8's?Soulbow is pretty great. Order of the Bow Initiate is a trap, unless you can get the old 3.0 version, which isn't that great.

[SowZ]

Dealing with Wind Wall plays against the strengths that archers are supposed to have, which is offsetting a lower damage with more attacks. Moving around it means at least one standard action. Moving through it means probably just as many standard actions as moving through it plus one and yields a higher chance of stepping into the melee vulnerability issue.



How does that even address the melee vulnerability? The vulnerability isn't about being able to do damage in melee range it's about the fact that dealing damage in melee range provokes AoO. Elvencraft just makes you useless by turning you away from your strength (shooting things with arrows) into something which you don't have any feats or development for (fighting with a quarterstaff). The only thing that really deals with the melee vulnerability is the 1st level ranger spell Arrow Mind which prevents you from provoking AoOs with ranged attacks (in addition to threatening adjacent squares with the ranged weapon).



Homebrew is homebrew. That has nothing to do with the lack of support that archery has for official content.



Greatbows are only great if you can get proficiency gratas. It's not worth spending a feat for an extra 1 average damage and an extra 20ft of range. Zen Archery is only great to a druid or cleric archer. Splitting isn't just a great weapon ability, it's a practically mandatory weapon ability which makes it bad design.

1 level in Targeteer gets you Dex to damage and two exotic ranged weapon prof.

[Shining Wrath]

I think we have established that the WotC rules are not quite all that.

I will suggest some homebrew improvements:
1) Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are now one feat, called Good Archer
2) Anyone who has the Good Archer feat gets to add 1/3 the amount they make their to-hit roll by to their damage, drop the fractions as usual
3) Add a Improved Good Archer and Master Good Archer feat tree that up the damage improvement to 50% and 100% of the amount the to-hit roll was made by

[Larkas]

Dealing with Wind Wall plays against the strengths that archers are supposed to have, which is offsetting a lower damage with more attacks. Moving around it means at least one standard action. Moving through it means probably just as many standard actions as moving through it plus one and yields a higher chance of stepping into the melee vulnerability issue.

If you're into Mounted Archery, this is a non-issue. If you're not, you can still shoot over the wall (with that weapon ability... Guided? Seeking? Always forget the name). And if all else fails, you maneuver, get a standard action and full attack the next round. Hardly optimal, but the Wind Wall will not move.


How does that even address the melee vulnerability? The vulnerability isn't about being able to do damage in melee range it's about the fact that dealing damage in melee range provokes AoO. Elvencraft just makes you useless by turning you away from your strength (shooting things with arrows) into something which you don't have any feats or development for (fighting with a quarterstaff). The only thing that really deals with the melee vulnerability is the 1st level ranger spell Arrow Mind which prevents you from provoking AoOs with ranged attacks (in addition to threatening adjacent squares with the ranged weapon).

If you're an archer, chances are that you have full, or very close to full, BAB. Chances are you are also stacking up on strength to jack up your damage with a Composite Longbow, Energy Bow or what have you. You don't have to focus on a Quarterstaff to be good at it. That is why melee is so much easier to pull off than ranged physical damage: you don't have to invest anything to be good at it. Besides, if you managed to get an initiator build (possible, though tricky, to pull off even with no homebrew), you can actually put some strikes to good use.


Homebrew is homebrew. That has nothing to do with the lack of support that archery has for official content.

Did you read the OP? FreakyCheeseMan specifically mentioned homebrew.


Greatbows are only great if you can get proficiency gratas. It's not worth spending a feat for an extra 1 average damage and an extra 20ft of range. Zen Archery is only great to a druid or cleric archer. Splitting isn't just a great weapon ability, it's a practically mandatory weapon ability which makes it bad design.

True enough. I didn't mean they were good for anyone, I just meant that there were additions that improved the archetype. And splitting is good, but in no ways mandatory. You can do just as well with a stock Energy Bow. I don't see it as bad design: unlike feat taxes, which occupy a feat slot that you can't use for anything else (Adaptive Style and Natural Spell, to name a couple), a weapon property can be bought whenever you have the money, or gotten with Greater Magic Weapon whenever.

[Just to Browse]

If you're into Mounted Archery, this is a non-issue. If you're not, you can still shoot over the wall (with that weapon ability... Guided? Seeking? Always forget the name). And if all else fails, you maneuver, get a standard action and full attack the next round. Hardly optimal, but the Wind Wall will not move.

How on earth are you maneuvering around a cylinder?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Did you read the OP? FreakyCheeseMan specifically mentioned homebrew.


Er. My specific point was that, given how easy it seems to homebrew a fix for this, I'm even more surprised that the published content never did.

Sorry if that was unclear.

[Gavinfoxx]

Ahem, Quickstart Cleric Archer:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10961

[Larkas]

How on earth are you maneuvering around a cylinder?

Ehm, Wind Wall is a, well, wall. That's its problem, actually, it closes off part of the battlefield to the archer, and can mess up the character if used indoors. Unless you're using Sculpt Spell. But then you're using a 4th level spell to make a 30ft.-tall cylinder (that can be easily shot over, or even gotten into, since a 10ft-radius is quite large), when you could be polymorphing and wrecking the archer instead. Now, don't get me wrong, I was the first to admit that Wind Wall is stupid and ridiculous, and just poor game design. I could see it imposing a penalty to the shot, but outright denying it? It isn't, however, such an insurmountable a spell as some people would have you believe.


Er. My specific point was that, given how easy it seems to homebrew a fix for this, I'm even more surprised that the published content never did.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Eh, no worries, it was probably just reading comprehension failure on my part.

[ScrambledBrains]

Ehm, Wind Wall is a, well, wall. That's its problem, actually, it closes off part of the battlefield to the archer, and can mess up the character if used indoors. Unless you're using Sculpt Spell. But then you're using a 4th level spell to make a 30ft.-tall cylinder (that can be easily shot over, or even gotten into, since a 10ft-radius is quite large), when you could be polymorphing and wrecking the archer instead. Now, don't get me wrong, I was the first to admit that Wind Wall is stupid and ridiculous, and just poor game design. I could see it imposing a penalty to the shot, but outright denying it? It isn't, however, such an insurmountable a spell as some people would have you believe.

The spell itself says that you can shape the wall into the form of a cylinder, so no need to use Sculpt Spell.

Just popping in to say that. Carry on.

[Xelbiuj]

Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

[gooddragon1]

Depending on what optimization level you're looking for:

I made these...

Jade Archer 1st form (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Jade_Archer_%283.5e_Class%29)
Jade Archer 2nd form (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Gd1w)
Jade Archer 3rd form (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Jade_Archer,_Revised_for_Ayron_%283.5e_Class%29)

In order from most to least powerful.

Someone more recently made a version with a lot more flavor (makes it better than these imo) but it's not as easy to view.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

There aren't historical examples of anything else in D&D, either. The best fighters in history haven't been a match for hundreds against one, pretty much anyone would be in serious danger if facing a grizzly bear in single combat, and very few people should realistically survive a fall from orbit (something a mid-level fighter can easily do.)

[Eldariel]

Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

The master bowman is definitely a heroic archetype that should be possible to play in-game; think Robin Hood for instance. Also, magic enables beating the traditional obstacles bows have.

That said, I prefer not making hyperspecialized martials the norm; IMHO your average warrior should be able to be fairly competent at multiple things with hyperspecialization as a rare alternative. I mean, swords are better up close while bows are pretty natural against something like a Dragon. In a fantasy world you'll obviously want competence and the ability to use both.

Which is why I like dipping two levels of Ranger in martial melee characters, 'cause Rapid Shot is the crux feats for making archery keep up early on. Of course, that's not really optimal and it's the only easy way, which kinda sucks.

[SowZ]

Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

I disagree. Arrows and bolts are excellent at piercing armor. A close range arrow can cut through plate. Sure, there are no examples of legolas. There also aren't examples of Aragorn, outnumbered 50 to one and winning with a sword.

Crossbows and rifles were the standard weapons even in skirmishes, and a trained longbowman would be an asset even in a small battle. Attacking before the other guy is basically what warfare has always boiled down to. It is one of the main reasons why spears>swords.

Even if we assume that bows, historically, aren't good in skirmishes, what do we do to the rest of D&D? Historically, most any soldier would prefer a polearm to a sword. Shields are heavily used, but aren't too great in D&D.

[Larkas]

The spell itself says that you can shape the wall into the form of a cylinder, so no need to use Sculpt Spell.

Just popping in to say that. Carry on.

See? Reading comprehension failure on my part. Using Wind Wall like that, then, completely destroys archery as a whole. You could either use your Elvencraft bow to whack the casters head or dispel the Wind Wall, then, but that is hardly archery. Again, terrible design.


Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

I point you towards these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g) videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs). Don't forget to read the description of the second one.

Furthermore, I don't remember any magic-wielding madmen in Earth's history.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I'm not sure if I have the rules mastery to really do effective homebrew, but it feels like a homebrew archer could be a hoot.

In general, home brewing martial classes looks fun, cause you don't have to worry as much about making them too powerful.

Let's see... full BAB, bonus feats every four or five levels, free archer-important feats as class features, some source of precision damage (sneak attack, skirmish, or something entirely new...)

What would people think of having precision damage based off the distance to the opponent? Bonus damage either for hitting targets close up, or at long range?

Some sort of custom feat to let them full attack while moving, so long as they're using ranged weapons and spend the entire turn within range of their opponents...

Moving into supernatural options, I like the idea of giving them a fast-and-easy way to enchant arrows - arrows would be almost like prepared spells, but they'd get a lot more of them (~100, arguably a lot more). They'd get various enchantments they could put on each - expanded crit ranges, elemental damage, ability to deal precision damage to constructs and undead, dispel magic on hit, AoE damage, ability to "Blink" through obstacles en route to target...

Eventually, they might be able to pile multiple enhancements on a single arrow.

[Larkas]

I'm not sure if I have the rules mastery to really do effective homebrew, but it feels like a homebrew archer could be a hoot.

In general, home brewing martial classes looks fun, cause you don't have to worry as much about making them too powerful.

Let's see... full BAB, bonus feats every four or five levels, free archer-important feats as class features, some source of precision damage (sneak attack, skirmish, or something entirely new...)

What would people think of having precision damage based off the distance to the opponent? Bonus damage either for hitting targets close up, or at long range?

Some sort of custom feat to let them full attack while moving, so long as they're using ranged weapons and spend the entire turn within range of their opponents...

Moving into supernatural options, I like the idea of giving them a fast-and-easy way to enchant arrows - arrows would be almost like prepared spells, but they'd get a lot more of them (~100, arguably a lot more). They'd get various enchantments they could put on each - expanded crit ranges, elemental damage, ability to deal precision damage to constructs and undead, dispel magic on hit, AoE damage, ability to "Blink" through obstacles en route to target...

Eventually, they might be able to pile multiple enhancements on a single arrow.

This sounds precariously close to a Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger/Arcane Archer :smallbiggrin:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

This sounds precariously close to a Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger/Arcane Archer :smallbiggrin:

*Shrugs* Would it work and be fun?

Also, I'd like to add another topic to the discussion - Slings. From what I've seen, D&D (and most other fantasy games) seem to treat Slings as just being the poor, makeshift cousins of bow and arrows.

(Everything that follows this sentence is based on my admittedly poor knowledge of medieval weaponry, combat and physics.)

From what I understand, that is simply not the case. Slings are harder to master than bow and arrow, but actually much more dangerous - in terms of the sheer amount of force applied, a bullet from a sling would be at least as deadly as an arrow, possibly more so. Slings propel their ammunition to incredible speeds, and the blunt force applied is quite capable of cracking ribs or skulls, even through armour.

Two factors really limited the use of slings - range, and the training required to use one. However, in the D&D dynamic - extremely competent heroes fighting in close quarters - slings would, realistically, be the superior option.

So. How wrong am I? :smalltongue:

[Larkas]

*Shrugs* Would it work and be fun?

It does, actually, and is pretty easy to build. You just need the classes and two feats: Swift Hunter proper and Sword of the Arcane Order. I recomend using Mystic Ranger, however, as he gives up martial melee weapon proficiency and the companion, which would be severely underleveled, anyways, for a better spell progression and spell access. There is also probably something better than Arcane Archer (something that advances spellcasting, preferably; hint: PF Arcane Archer), but it does work.

EDIT: Come to think of it, Duskblades could work... Meh, they can only channel through melee attacks. Carry on.

[Shining Wrath]

Should pure archers even be good?

There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.
Arrows are (and should be) easily thwarted by armor/shields irl, bows are not weapons meant for small skirmishes, really it's like complaining that a siege engine doesn't work really well in a dungeon.
Bows have only ever been good because of pure volume. It's basically a high tech version of chucking rocks. Pointed, stabilized, high speed rocks, but still.

One word refutation: Agincourt.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

One word refutation: Agincourt.

Actually, last I checked... no. The arrows used at the time wouldn't have been able to pierce the french armor.

What was actually going on was that the hill was exceptionally muddy, and the knights had on riding boots - when they tried to ascend the hill they got stuck, and a knight in heavy armour in slippery mud is kinda pathetic. At the time, knights were very interested in capturing lords or other knights for ransom - they were fighting for themselves, rather than for their lords.

The English archers, however, were peasants, and as such they had two advantages - first, they had no interest in doing anything other than surviving (which meant killing the French Cavalry), and two, they head cheap leather boots, which did just fine in mud. So, the battle actually ended up as a bunch of english peasants wandering around the mud and slitting throats.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm not sure if I have the rules mastery to really do effective homebrew, but it feels like a homebrew archer could be a hoot.

In general, home brewing martial classes looks fun, cause you don't have to worry as much about making them too powerful.

Let's see... full BAB, bonus feats every four or five levels, free archer-important feats as class features, some source of precision damage (sneak attack, skirmish, or something entirely new...)

What would people think of having precision damage based off the distance to the opponent? Bonus damage either for hitting targets close up, or at long range?

Some sort of custom feat to let them full attack while moving, so long as they're using ranged weapons and spend the entire turn within range of their opponents...

Moving into supernatural options, I like the idea of giving them a fast-and-easy way to enchant arrows - arrows would be almost like prepared spells, but they'd get a lot more of them (~100, arguably a lot more). They'd get various enchantments they could put on each - expanded crit ranges, elemental damage, ability to deal precision damage to constructs and undead, dispel magic on hit, AoE damage, ability to "Blink" through obstacles en route to target...

Eventually, they might be able to pile multiple enhancements on a single arrow.

I think it'd be fun to have some abilities based off of skill checks - such as Make a perception check vs your opponent, by every 5 you beat your opponent by (factoring in range), add 1d6 damage, with a cap of 1/2 your level in the class for extra d6es.

So Bob the Hobgoblin is hiding out in a tree, ready to ambush the party. He's 200 feet away. Bob makes a Sneak check and gets a 17.

Cherry, the Eagle Eyed Archer, gets a free action to make a free spot check vs all hidden opponents thanks to her sweet 7th level class ability. Detecting something amiss, she suddenly swivels her gaze and stares right at the sneaky goblinoid. Cherry rolls terribly on her perception check and gets a 48 (Wis+2, Perception skill ranks +10, Class skill bonus +3, Headband of Ridiculous Vision +30, roll=3).

She has a 20 point penalty to see Bob because he's 200 feet away, but that's why she spent all that gold on her sweet headband. Even with the penalty, she beats Bob's hide check by 11 points, or enough to inflict another 2d6 precision damage per shot on the poor SOB as she proceeds to launch a volley of pointy hate into his guts, using rapid shot.


Hmm... that sounds like a really fun prestige class. :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

Just add Dex to damage, allow power attack to work for ranged weapons, merge PBS with Precise shot and add another feat to allow ranged Disarm/Sunder/Trip. Goes a long way to solve the problems of archery. Also maybe a cheap magic item or ability/feat that counters the effects of wind to fight off wind wall destroying your archery, but most would prefer to fix the spell itself.

Alternatively, the homebrew threads are bound to have something to help you out (shameless link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249389)).

[Shining Wrath]

Actually, last I checked... no. The arrows used at the time wouldn't have been able to pierce the french armor.

What was actually going on was that the hill was exceptionally muddy, and the knights had on riding boots - when they tried to ascend the hill they got stuck, and a knight in heavy armour in slippery mud is kinda pathetic. At the time, knights were very interested in capturing lords or other knights for ransom - they were fighting for themselves, rather than for their lords.

The English archers, however, were peasants, and as such they had two advantages - first, they had no interest in doing anything other than surviving (which meant killing the French Cavalry), and two, they head cheap leather boots, which did just fine in mud. So, the battle actually ended up as a bunch of english peasants wandering around the mud and slitting throats.

They didn't have to pierce the armor. Armor, especially for the rank and file, was not 100% air (or arrow) tight. And some of those peasants were very good shots.

The French men-at-arms fared no better than the charging knights, and they wore boots.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

They didn't have to pierce the armor. Armor, especially for the rank and file, was not 100% air (or arrow) tight. And some of those peasants were very good shots.

The French men-at-arms fared no better than the charging knights, and they wore boots.

So, reading over the wikipedia article...

What I'm getting is that both were certainly a factor - arrows and mud, but it was really the mud that defined the battle (even though a big part of the effect of that mud was preventing the French from closing on the British archers.)

It also looks like the main slaughter took place in melee range; the french were exhausted from slogging through mud, too packed in to be able to move or fight effectively, and generally easy prey for the lightly armoured longbowmen, after they closed to melee range. (The French being full of arrows didn't help, either.)

[Hiro Protagonest]

I disagree. Arrows and bolts are excellent at piercing armor. A close range arrow can cut through plate. Sure, there are no examples of legolas. There also aren't examples of Aragorn, outnumbered 50 to one and winning with a sword.

Crossbows and rifles were the standard weapons even in skirmishes, and a trained longbowman would be an asset even in a small battle. Attacking before the other guy is basically what warfare has always boiled down to. It is one of the main reasons why spears>swords.

Even if we assume that bows, historically, aren't good in skirmishes, what do we do to the rest of D&D? Historically, most any soldier would prefer a polearm to a sword. Shields are heavily used, but aren't too great in D&D.

Indeed. A good crossbow bolt or bodkin-tipped arrow can pierce armor, and very easily within ambush and skirmish distance.

Take the African archers. In ancient Egyptian times, these were prized mercenaries, and they were called "pupil smiters" because they had the habit of hitting their mark of the pupils in eyes. Sometime millenia later, a man wrote about how he saw an African archer with an arrow that had no metal point (and was therefore harder to shoot accurately because of weight distribution) hit the pinhole of a target in a competition. With this kind of extreme accuracy, partial armor is not sufficient protection. Anything less than a knight in full armor (doesn't matter whether it's chain or plate, just has to completely cover him) will take a wound at least.

[Daftendirekt]

I remember doing a build a few months back that used skirmish damage, the splitting enhancement (which is a must for basically any archer btw), and greater manyshot. He was actually able to keep doing constant respectable damage.

Yeah, swift hunters and swift ambushers can actually pump out some pretty good damage if built properly.


Stack Vital Aim, Dead-Eye, and Crossbow Sniper with Hand Crossbow Focus, Rapid Shot, Splitting Arrows, and possibly Dual Wielding, take 3 Rogue levels, (Halfling substitution to get a bonus SA die on ranged,) and Craven, take 4 levels in Targeteer, 4 in Ranger (distracting shot,) then take Peerless Archer all the way up. Get some Haste method and you can easily dish out over a thousand damage a round. Shoot, pick up Weapon Spec. and Ranged Weapon Mastery if you really want to.
Actually that is just on thrown, not on all ranged. So, no go in this situation.

[Wings of Peace]

The biggest disadvantage archery has over melee imo is that it lacks a direct equivalent to Power Attack. Archers get Powers Shot and things similar to Power Shot via things like Peerless Archer and Hank's Bow. These things are only similar to Power attack however, not equivalent.

Power attack can be combined with a bajillion feats to radically increase it's damage output (uber charging) and on top of that the ab problems can remedied easily via Shocktrooper with an adding of Arcane Duelist if you absolutely need to boost your ab further.

[ArcturusV]

I'm going to say the problem isn't a lack of Power Attack, or Good Enchantments for Bows. Or being slightly more MAD as you need Dex to hit and Str to add damage (With Composites).

I think the reason Archery is bad is even more basic than that.

Standard Engagement Range.

Which has two related problems.

One, the Archer is generally going to suck if someone gets in their face, having to waste a turn to run away or switch weapons, etc. There are some exceptions for this out there of course. But this is general principle. When your standard combat encounters tend to start at ranges where people can get into melee in a single round, this becomes a more crippling flaw than it should be. And the engagement range is what it is for several reasons. Some of them are logical, like Dungeons not having half mile long corridors you can spot and shoot down typically. But mostly it's because people don't want to play out scenarios where only the archer can act for X rounds.

I mean imagine a more logical encounter where, traveling in the wilderness, I see a band of Orcs approaching. I probably spot them more at a range like a mile off. A longbowman can hit this, don't question that. So I get out my bow and arrow and start taking shots.

The Spellcaster (Sans Teleportation) doesn't really have anything to effect at this range. The melee doesn't either. So they're just twiddling their thumbs while the Archer gets several rounds of free attacks off while no one else can do anything. Or they can try to charge and close the gap as well to reduce the time. But still, you're going to have a few rounds where the PC action is basically "The archer makes a full attack action", before the battle between Orcs and Players is joined.

This gets even worse if a logical hobgoblin group, for example, faced the PCs and spent 8 rounds getting free shots on them as they tried to get into range of Spells and Swords.

So this sort of logical, but long range, encounter is ignored. You end up with engagements where battles start more at 200', max. And you will get ONE set of arrows off before Melee is joined.

And that leads to the other problem. Melee hate. Shooting into melee in particular. It's just another thing against the archer that they don't need. You know your team is going to get into melee. And as soon as they do, you take a nice, big, and unnecessary hit to your effectiveness. Now the only characters you really got a chance at popping off are ones who purposefully don't want to close to melee, like Spellcasters. Though they have plenty of protection from an archer anyway. Windwalls, Wall of Force/Iron/Stone, Protection from Arrows, Blur, Mirror Image, etc, etc, etc.

These two factors, I feel, are the real weakness to archery. Things like a lack of Power Attack are annoying, but not quite as critical.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

>_>

Anyone know if I'm right about the "Slings being deadlier than bow & arrow" thing?

[Eldariel]

>_>

Anyone know if I'm right about the "Slings being deadlier than bow & arrow" thing?

Only if you're not counting Composite Longbows. Those tend to be pretty reliable. A Barbarian 18/Ranger 2 with a Composite Longbow adjusted for his raging strength (there's a handful of autoadjusting bows in the game, or you can carry two and have both GMWd) can have ~42 strength (18 base, 5 levels, 5 inherent, 6 item, 6 rage, 2 enlarge) and ~26 dexterity (18 base, 4 inherent, 6 item -2 enlarge) which with a GMWd Composite Longbow and Boots of Speed leads to a full attack of:
+31/+31/+31/+26/+21/+16 for 2d6+26 each

That's...not amazing since the To Hit is quite a bit on the low side and GMW is really the only way to keep up with weapon enhancements without burning a fortune on your backup weapon, but it still averages ~85 damage to an AC 40 target like Pit Fiend (provided you don't have DR problems) which is probably better than most Sling attacks, doubly so with the real selling point of any manner of ranged attacks, very good range (indeed, default Composite Longbow with no frills can be used up to 1100' away and when you add stuff like Distance, Farshot and so on you can easily get to ~5000' let alone actually optimizing it).

The biggest problem with bows is MAD; Dex to hit and Str to damage requires high stats to keep up and usually forces you to skimp on damage to get sufficient To Hit for the hard targets. There are ways around this but again, it shouldn't really be a problem to start with; it's just bad design.

[Baroncognito]

In Pathfinder they have Deadly Aim, which is literally just ranged power attack.

The problem isn't that archers are ineffective, it's that they require a buttload of feats and large portions of your build to be built around it, whereas being good in melee isn't hard at all. It makes some amount of sense requiring an extra feat or two, but you need so many.

The reason for all the feats is that range is potentially a huge advantage. It doesn't play out that way in all games, but it can make a difference.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Only if you're not counting Composite Longbows. Those tend to be pretty reliable. A Barbarian 18/Ranger 2 with a Composite Longbow adjusted for his raging strength (there's a handful of autoadjusting bows in the game, or you can carry two and have both GMWd) can have ~42 strength (18 base, 5 levels, 5 inherent, 6 item, 6 rage, 2 enlarge) and ~26 dexterity (18 base, 4 inherent, 6 item -2 enlarge) which with a GMWd Composite Longbow and Boots of Speed leads to a full attack of:
+31/+31/+31/+26/+21/+16 for 2d6+26 each

That's...not amazing since the To Hit is quite a bit on the low side and GMW is really the only way to keep up with weapon enhancements without burning a fortune on your backup weapon, but it still averages ~85 damage to an AC 40 target like Pit Fiend (provided you don't have DR problems) which is probably better than most Sling attacks, doubly so with the real selling point of any manner of ranged attacks, very good range (indeed, default Composite Longbow with no frills can be used up to 1100' away and when you add stuff like Distance, Farshot and so on you can easily get to ~5000' let alone actually optimizing it).

The biggest problem with bows is MAD; Dex to hit and Str to damage requires high stats to keep up and usually forces you to skimp on damage to get sufficient To Hit for the hard targets. There are ways around this but again, it shouldn't really be a problem to start with; it's just bad design.

Very thorough, but I meant in real life. :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

There was a debate on this a while back. If I remember right, it only held true for early bows, but eventually bows pulled out ahead before we reach the point in history that fantasy loosely imitates.

You could pretend that the more advanced bows are composite bows, but once a knowledgeable person gets a word in I bet he'll pick apart any further relation besides damage.

For D&D, strategically bows have the advantage and they usually allow more full attacks so it makes no sense for them to have equal damage. Because melee tends to have more splatbook support you could say that any splatbook item that can be done for melee can be done at range and you'd get a decent rough solution for those who like to optimize more. It will probably favor the bow a little too much because like I said bow damage should be worse. But that could give you a starting point.

[Waspinator]

I have to agree that encounter design is an issue. Unless the entire party is using long-range attacks, it's boring to have long-range fights where only one or two people can contribute. So, D&D adventures tend to be indoors and/or close-range since people like swords. And if you're close enough to use a sword, being a bow specialist is likely not ideal.

While homebrew has helped solve the lack, I do think Wizards missed a big chance by not having some Tome of Battle material for archery. Would've made sense to rework that while they were reworking melee characters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Archery definitely has a damage and overcoming DR problem. Which is compounded by the fact, as a poster mentioned is that damage is all they do. A melee character can use grapple and trip, can take Stand Still to lock an area down, can get Imperious Command to cower-lock anyone within his reach. He has options. A lot of them, many helpful for keeping the rest of the party safe.

But on top of that, he also outdamages the archer and has power attack for an even wider gap. An archer's main advantages -- always full attack and attack nearly anyone -- really aren't that special. Pounce is easy to get, and there is a skill trick and other options to turn during a charge. Flight is a common buff and a not terribly expensive item.

PF, much as I loathe it, really did fix archery. And they didn't *just* fix it by making it stronger, they also nerfed the hell out of melee, making archery look better in comparison (I'm not saying this aspect was a welcome thing, I'm just saying it's a factor in the appearance of how "good" archery seems).

How did PF help archers? Oh, let me count the ways...

- There is a ranged power attack feat, Deadly Aim.
- There is a feat to make DR a joke, Clustered Shots.
- There is a feat to shoot w/o provoking, Point Blank Master.
- Several classes can get archery feats early as bonus feats; namely Imp. Precise Shot at level 6
- Adjustable strength is a flat +1000 gp bow enhancement.
- Manyshot now stacks with Rapid Shot for even moar full attack damage.
- There is now a "Snap Shot" line of feats that for 2 feats will let you threaten 15 ft around you with bow shots, for some minor area control.
- PF scrapped the 50% friendly fire rule for shooting into a grapple (also counts as a melee nerf, see below).

Further, melee was nerfed:
- All maneuver feats were broken up and now need BAB 6 to complete; maneuvers in general (especially grapple, trip, and bull rush) are tremendously nerfed, and maneuvers are much harder to succeed on
- Pounce, barring a few specific tricks, is now a level 10+ feat for noncasters (casters still get it super early, summoner's eidolon gets it at level 1).
- Cap on Power Attack limited the damage output melee could obtain. Archers have it w/ Deadly Aim, too, but they never had PA before in the first place so its not a nerf to them.


I think the reason Archery is bad is even more basic than that.

Standard Engagement Range.

Absolutely! Everything you said. Not only is the archer getting screwed by the short encounter ranges typical of most games, that also leads into the fact that, as a heroic fantasy game, D&D has Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) (warning, tvtropes link). Not only should he realistically be able to get off a ton of shots before the foes can close to melee with him, those shots should also be weakening the foes because, well.... they're getting injured! It's this fact that really pisses me off when people complain, "archers shooting while threatened w/o provoking isn't REALISTIC!" If the game were realistic, the melee guy would be struggling just to march forward by the time he got anywhere near the archer!

(note: I am actually FOR crit exist failure, as not having it makes the game even more caster friendly and rocket tag -oriented. I just think people should acknowledge that the game being such is a huge nerf to the archer and allowing him to be "unrealistic" in some ways to make up for it is warranted. I also don't actually think an expert, combat veteran archer shooting while harrassed is terribly "unrealistic," either, though *sigh*)

[ericgrau]

Archery definitely has a... overcoming DR problem.
That's one advantage they have over melee. You can swap metal types very easily to overcome DR.

[Lans]

Flight is a common buff and a not terribly expensive item.


Most flight items don't give you perfect maneuverability, which means that if an enemy is flying or standing higher than you, then you can't charge them.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

It does seem like archery could get more play out of different sorts of magic arrows. You don't even need a class for that, just more items.

Also - I recall an idea I had, some time ago. I was working on trying to make long-range combat interesting to non-long-range players. I had this notion of a party trying to advance under cover, with some sort of powerful enemy sniping from distance; that, or a party engaged in a fight around cover, with a sniper providing cover from distance.

I had a few ideas (mages using spells to provide cover, either physical or fog, feints to try to get the guy to waste shots then acting while he's reloading, etc.) Not sure if any of it would have worked in practice.

[Gotterdammerung]

Several times, I've seen people on these forums state that "Archer" is the one archetype that not only doesn't work by RAW, but can't be made to work with any number of splatbooks. (For contrast, "Monk" doesn't work, but "Unarmed Martial Artist" is entirely doable; "Paladin" doesn't work, but "Holy Warrior" does.)

Just from what I've seen, this seems to be the case, and I can understand the most basic reasons why - difficulty of moving and striking, tough to get any significant damage bonuses, etc.

My question is... why hasn't this been fixed? Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few rough outlines for home brew classes that would make archers into a solid Tier 3, and I'm far from the best at home brew. Across so many years and so many splatbooks, why is this still a failure?

It certainly seems like there would be enough impetus to fix it - Archers get plenty of love in heroic fantasy (Robin Hood, Legolas, That One Greek Guy). Seeing as it looks like a well-defined problem that would be easily fixed without breaking the rest of the game... why hasn't it been?

(Sorry if question is a little weird - I've got an academic interest in game design, and would be fascinated to know the reasons/story behind this.)

Archers are not bad. They are in fact very good.

[Talderas]

Attacking before the other guy is basically what warfare has always boiled down to. It is one of the main reasons why spears>swords.

I hate to be pedantic here but the reason spears are better than swords was due to the lack of training needed to be competent with them and spearmen outside of formation would be cut to shreds by swordsmen. It's the same reason that crossbows were better than longbows.

--


Just add Dex to damage, allow power attack to work for ranged weapons, merge PBS with Precise shot and add another feat to allow ranged Disarm/Sunder/Trip. Goes a long way to solve the problems of archery.

Bolas solve your ranged tripping problems.

--


I think the reason Archery is bad is even more basic than that.

Standard Engagement Range.

Which has two related problems.

This is actually a lot worse than you might think. Don't forget the penalty to spot based on distance (-1/10ft) and that there is a maximum distance that one can even see another creature at. These act as hard limits on the maximum engagement range (1440' in plains if I remember correct) and most of these maximums are within 1-3 range increments for a composite longbow. So a level 10 ranger who has 14 Wisdom and a maximum spot check would see his bonus from wisdom and ranks disappear when trying to see anything more than 150ft out.

--


Composite Longbow with no frills can be used up to 1100' away and when you add stuff like Distance, Farshot and so on you can easily get to ~5000' let alone actually optimizing it).

A useless exercise due to maximum encounter ranges. 5000ft is pointless when you can't see a target that's more than 1440ft away during optimal conditions.

[ArcturusV]

I never subscribed to Spot Shenanigans. I know people have used Spot Shenanigans to point out weird things like being unable to see the sun, or unable to see to the end of the block, etc. But it's clearly opposed by Hide by intention. If something isn't hiding, you don't have to Spot Check. And rationally, some things are impossible to Hide (like a horde of orcs on a dusty plain).

[Eldariel]

A useless exercise due to maximum encounter ranges. 5000ft is pointless when you can't see a target that's more than 1440ft away during optimal conditions.

If you use RAW encounter rules, sure, but those rules are dumb and not very necessary so I don't see any more reason to use them than I see to use e.g. CR or Favored Class rules. Let's face it, by RAW the system is a wreck and we make the most out of it by taking the usable bits and eyeballing the rest so it works.

In reality, a human eye can see 5 kilometers (~16400ft) away and that limit only exists due to Earth's shape; on flat planes the potential distance would be far longer. Maximum encounter range should be no lower than that. That's of course without magically enhanced sight or spotting with e.g. Chain of Eyes.

[Andreaz]

I never subscribed to Spot Shenanigans. I know people have used Spot Shenanigans to point out weird things like being unable to see the sun, or unable to see to the end of the block, etc. But it's clearly opposed by Hide by intention. If something isn't hiding, you don't have to Spot Check. And rationally, some things are impossible to Hide (like a horde of orcs on a dusty plain).I tend to use perceptions more liberally. "Is something difficult to see at such distance?" is what requires a check. Up close it means a fine detail or something camouflaged (try finding a 0 among a bunch of Os!). From afar it gets broader. Seeing a corpse on the bushes is easy from a short range, but definitely not a mile away.

[Lorsa]

The reason Archers are worse is because of the idea that if you can do your damage at range and thus be more "safe" then you should do less damage. Needing to be up and close is a tradeoff for higher damage output. It's a nice thought in theory as if archery did exactly the same damage as a two-handed melee weapon specialist then everyone would be archers.

Of course ranged casters still outdamage melee fighter martial classes but there it is the tradeoff of less hp (or so the theory goes). The issue is further complicated that too many encounters takes place in locations where utilizing a longer range / superior position is simply not possible. Everyone starts at charging distance and / or is in a small space like a room. So somewhere the theory fails to deliver in practice.

All that aside, I think archery still should be worse. Not quite as ghastly poor as it is currently but worse than melee fighting. Otherwise everyone would run around with a bow and that just isn't logical.

I had a one-off scenario with the players being a group of level 10 orcs sent out on a raid. The intelligent, somewhat gay orc ranger in the group finished off a (young) dragon with a crit of ~80 or so damage just before it was about to smash the barbarian to pieces. I thought that was actually pretty decent for an archer, not to mention that even if he did less damage in general than the barbarian he was still pretty useful due to the range. Of course, having an Oathbow does help...

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...
I think the reason Archery is bad is even more basic than that.

Standard Engagement Range.

Which has two related problems.

One, the Archer is generally going to suck if someone gets in their face, having to waste a turn to run away or switch weapons, etc. ... SNIP ...

You end up with engagements where battles start more at 200', max. And you will get ONE set of arrows off before Melee is joined.

And that leads to the other problem. Melee hate. Shooting into melee in particular. ... SNIP ...

These two factors, I feel, are the real weakness to archery. Things like a lack of Power Attack are annoying, but not quite as critical.

The guy-in-your-face problem can be addressed by an archer staying behind the big guys and acting like a rogue / caster. Yeah, it sucks if they get near you, but with your Dexterity, if you can't Tumble, it's because you fail. The melee problem is addressed by Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot.

As for the long distance engagement - it's sort of odd that we, as players, will put up with situations where the Party Face uses several rounds of the charisma based skills to negotiate a better price for the horses we want to buy, but we can't stand watching the archer engage in combat while we aren't killing anyone.
Especially when you consider the existence of buffing spells. Cat's Grace on the archer, anyone?


... SNIP ...
In reality, a human eye can see 5 kilometers (~16400ft) away and that limit only exists due to Earth's shape; on flat planes the potential distance would be far longer. Maximum encounter range should be no lower than that. That's of course without magically enhanced sight or spotting with e.g. Chain of Eyes.

From time to time I have to drive from Colorado to ... other places. If you will gaze upon a map you will notice the absence of nearby other places of any great population. So one finds ways to amuse one's self on these drives.

One is to look at something at the edge of visibility and try to guess how many miles away it is, and check with the odometer.

I can assure you that large things, such as gas stations, can be spotted more than 5 kilometers out. Ten miles, easily, with even a small hill to stand on.

[Person_Man]

It's not bad per se. It's just different.

The biggest problem is that players tend choose low-Tier classes when they want to play archery. If you start with a Tier 4 Ranger or Rogue or Scout chassis and then maybe head into another mediocre prestige class, then of course you're going to be less useful then other non-Tier 4 builds. If you start with a Tier 3+ Incarnate or Binder or Cleric or whatnot, then you'll be much more effective.

Anywho, here's the pros and cons as I see it:

Archery Pros:

If you're standing back from the main line of combat, you're less likely to be attacked compared to a melee character.
You can use your bow every round of every combat without ever running out. (Unless you run out of ammo, which is rare).
You can stack different effects on your bow and ammo, essentially wielding two magic weapons at the same time for each attack. A +1 Flaming bow shooting +1 Frost arrows means that you make +1 Flaming Frost attacks.
You can choose what ammo you use for each attack. So Damage Reduction is rarely an issue (as long as your character is aware that the enemy has it. And if you're paying attention to the plot and know what the BBEG is you can buy a few Slaying Arrows (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Slaying_Arrow) or Bane or Banishing arrows.
Splitting arrow enhancement basically doubles the number of attacks you can make each round. Champions of Ruin pg 42, +3 bonus.
Exit Wound enhancement gives you even more attacks. If you hit an enemy with a ranged weapon, it also effects the enemy behind him, and potentially the enemy behind him, and so on. Complete Warrior pg 134, +2 bonus.
Knockback enhancement (Ranged weapons only) gives you a free Bull Rush on every attack, and only works. Complete Warrior pg 135, +3 bonus. It was unfortunately nerfed in Magic Item Compendium update, but if your DM is nice he'll ignore that.
Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) is pretty cool at low-mid levels (when you don't necessarily have the money to buy a lot of magic ammo), especially if your DM is fond of incorporeal enemies.
It's a great backup option for pretty much any build, as a DM can contrive plenty of encounters where you can't readily use melee, (flying enemies, enemies on a high wall or cliff, enemies in treetops, etc) or if you're a spellcaster or manifester of any kind and just want to avoid burning through your resources.
There are some very useful spells which support it. Greater Magic Weapon, Arrow Mind, and Arrow Storm are the most noteworthy, but I'm sure there are others in the splatbooks. Remember, a single level of a class lets you use all spell trigger items (wands) for that class without a UMD check. So a single level of Ranger lets you have a Wand of Arrow Storm, which you can put into a wand chamber (Dungeonscape) in your bow.
Unlike melee builds, which have to worry about Pounce and having a valid target within their reach and having someone to hit with every attack after they kill their initial target, ranged builds rarely "waste" an attack action.
If you can find a Feat or magical enhancement that inflicts a status effect, you can often inflict it on multiple different enemies each round. Paralyzing, Subjugating, Sudden Stunning, etc.
You can move and fire more then one attack every round with Manyshot or Greater Manyshot, and being mobile can be a huge advantage.
You can Ready a Standard Action to use Manyshot or Greater Manyshot. This allows you to easily disrupt an an enemy caster's spell or manifester's power from anywhere on the battlefield if you beat them in Initiative.
Is Dexterity based by default (and can be Wisdom based with Zen Archery Feat if you prefer), which effects Initiative, AC, Reflex Saves, and many Skills.
You can attack enemies from a huge range.


Archery Cons:

You're unlikely to deal as much damage as a melee build.
Using any weapon will never be as versatile or powerful as spells, powers, etc.
Playing a low Tier archery build is painfully repetitive. You do the same action every round of every combat. (Though this is true of most low Tier builds).
Most archery Feats suck, providing minor unscaled bonuses. I avoid them entirely if possible, and just get Precise ranged weapon property (Magic Item Compendium, +1) for Precise Shot.
You can't benefit from melee Feats, like Knock-Down, Knockback, Scorpion's Grasp, etc. Nor can you use it with most Tome of Battle maneuvers. (Though you can still benefit from stances).
You can't normally generate attacks of opportunity, which is the key to many combos.
In narrow dungeons or other similar situations you may have trouble targeting enemies.
In general most tabletop game encounters occur occur within a fairly limited range (because the size of the table is limited, and everyone else in your party wants to fight in melee), so most of the time it doesn't matter how impressive your range is. 60 feet of range is functionally the same as 6,000 ft if your enemies are all within 60 feet.

[Soranar]

Archers vs melee

Personally, I find my AoO builds often end up having more attacks than an archer. That is a problem, unlike normal high DEX characters archers don't get AoO. They do get feats that grant extra attacks but those attacks come at a feat tax and a to hit disadvantange while my AoO build can get 1 extra attack regardless of feats or even more than that if he does invest in feats (combat reflexes). Though AoO are situational, that situation happens often enough that it's almost as reliabe as rapid shot: a LOT of actions trigger AoO (assuming a reach weapon).

Overcoming DR is not an issue for a melee attacker when he deals 100 something damage, even DR 15 isn't that much. Even if an archer can use the appropriate arrow head to overcome the DR, he won't out damage a melee character, but then again neither will a caster ( as was pointed out before).

There is 1 class better at archery than just about any other (ranger) just like there is 1 class better at melee than just about any other (barbarian). But a barbarian gets pounce as his level 1 ability, not so for a ranger. Even rapid shot is a level 2 ability.

Melee is SAD and gets 1.5 time it's bonus to damage AND power attack
Archery is MAD (at least 2 STATS required unless you go the crossbow) and Hank's energy bow doesn't grant 1.5 time the bonus to power attack through power shot.

Melee feats are generally superior to archery feats (investment wise you get more return for them).

Does all of this make archery useless, no it does not.

-A flying archer is far more problematic to deal with than a flyer melee attacker
-a grounded archer can deal with a flying attacker, the opposite isn't true
-A party of archers can use terrain more effectively than their melee counterpart and benefit more from spells: a barbarian is always 1 grease spell away from uselessness while an archer is probably the one casting the grease spell in the first place (or a tanglefoot bag or an entangle spell, there are a lot of those effects to choose from)

Melee characters (ToB excepted) are usually very good at 1 situation and terrible unless they are in that situation (melee combat)

Archer characters tend to be more versatile due to the nature of their natural classes (swift hunter builds, straight ranger builds, rogue builds, ninja builds, etc). They tend to have more skillpoints, more tricks and more spells.

I don't count tier 1 classes here because a Druid or a Cleric aren't melee characters, they're spellcasters that can melee if they get bored with their spells.

In the end, the question isn't whether melee is better than archery. The question is whether archery is a viable choice: can you deal with CR appropriate encounter with an archer? I would say so. Swift hunter builds are very good, archery rogues are decent (though they suffer from not having their melee counterpart's access to penetrating strike and the like). Soulbows are great but, since they don't exist until level 6, I tend to ignore them.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm curious, with Pathfinder fixing the Arcane Archer, have you guys seen a rise of 'spellbow' builds in your games? It seems like a pretty attractive combination now, and I'm surprised that at least one of my players haven't explored it yet.

PF Arcane Archer + either Magus or Summoner could be pretty interesting. Same goes for Arcane Archer paired with a Ranger 2/Witch 8 build.

[ericgrau]

As for encounter distance, I don't think the DM should tailor it for or against melee or archery. It should start wherever people see eachother. That tends to be under 200 feet, so typically range get a round or two of shooting before melee closes in. And any smart melee should have a ranged backup weapon. Slings work well for those with high strength and they're cheap. There's way more than just encounter distance to be ready for.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm curious, with Pathfinder fixing the Arcane Archer, have you guys seen a rise of 'spellbow' builds in your games? It seems like a pretty attractive combination now, and I'm surprised that at least one of my players haven't explored it yet.

PF didn't fix the Arcane Archer. Nearly all prestige classes in PF suck and aren't worth pursuing compared to staying in your base class, and AA is no exception.

What PF *did* do, however, is nerf the one genuinely awesome ability the AA has, the thing that made it an attractive dip: Imbue Arrow. So, I think PF actually made AA worse. At least in 3E, you could dip it 2 levels and cast Guards and Wards, and any other long cast time area spell, as a standard action. Along with the Antimagic Field + Imbue Arrow lulz. In PF, you can still do the latter, but not the former. So in PF, you get the same end result: a 2 level dip for imbue arrow. But you get less out of the dip than you did in 3E.

Seriously, though, I'm genuinely not sure what the point of AA in PF is, other than as a dip for Imbue Arrow, when you could just take Eldritch Knight instead for better BAB and CL progression.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Also, the spot rules are for opposing hide. You do not and should not need a DC 20 spot check to see someone standing around at 200 ft away. If said guy is instead crawling through the grass to not be seen.... then you have to actually check.

3.0 had pretty good starting encounter distance rules, with low, flat DC spot checks for fairly long distances on plains and similar terrain. These were unfortunately left out of 3.5 and thus people think the spot DCs apply for anything, which is ridiculous.

[Eldariel]

Seriously, though, I'm genuinely not sure what the point of AA in PF is, other than as a dip for Imbue Arrow, when you could just take Eldritch Knight instead for better BAB and CL progression.

Well, now the weapon enhancements they get at least can't be replicated by GMW, so they get some real value.

[Reverent-One]

Seriously, though, I'm genuinely not sure what the point of AA in PF is, other than as a dip for Imbue Arrow, when you could just take Eldritch Knight instead for better BAB and CL progression.

Nitpick: AA and EK have the same BAB.

And the point is the variety of archery related powers like the enhance arrows ability, imbue arrow (even if you can't cheat the casting time anymore), hail of arrows, ect that the EK doesn't get. Seriously, the ability to add a number of enhancements to arrows with no cost or crafting time, and being able to switch out those enhancements on a daily basis, is a fairly obvious advantage.

[Icewraith]

My wife's gestalt Fighter/Cleric archer did a pretty fair amount of damage, and we were running around with a (somewhat unoptimized) frenzied berserker at the time.

However, her main source of damage was rapid shot, a +1 bow loaded up with elemental burst effects, Improved Critical, and being a dice goddess. Rolling natural 20s and 18s for ability scores (off 4d6 drop lowest) just came naturally to her - we had her switch dice a few times and she still did pretty good and her usual dice didn't work for anyone else.

Now granted, you can make almost any combat style work if you roll well, but when you can load up on elemental bursts, use greater magic weapon and add holy damage on 4-5 attacks per round and full attack without having to chase someone around in melee, you can dish out a considerable chunk of damage. Bows have x3 crit so having three bursts on there (for a +7 bow) gets you 3d8+strx3+12 enhancement (assume +4 from greater magic weapon) +3d6 ele+2d6 holy+6d10 burst on 10% of a normal person's rolls. This doesn't work so well on outsiders with multiple elemental resistances, but clerics have other tools for dealing with those. That's also 88 average and 138 max damage on one crit.

Since you're not power attacking, those second and third iteratives have a pretty good chance of hitting, so as a DM I was usually looking at 4-5 successful attacks per round and very often 2+ confirmed crits.

Once you get to epic there's a shield enchant that completely screws over archery, but by that time she had a fairly shiny backup longsword that she just beat the BBEG down with after he charged her and knocked off most of her HP.

[Snails]

The premise of this thread is misleading. Archers are not bad, they merely are not great in smaller parties. In larger parties where they can count on a meatshield or two to give them breathing room, they can unleash full attack after full attack.

Wind Wall is a non-issue, because that is a Fireball that did not rake the entire party. The math disfavors this tactic strongly once the party is 6+ in strength.

I occasionally play in a large party of 8-9 PCs and the poorly optimized archer is always in the running for winning in damage output. He usually comes in second or third, but he is in the thick of the race while only rarely getting beaten unconscious. The archer may be paying a small feat tax, but he is not paying the "I need good armor" tax or the "I get grappled by huge monsters with Str 30" tax.

Dancing around in close combat wielding a bow is a high fantasy image we get from Legolas -- that is supposed to be overt proof of superhuman ability. The vision of Robin Hood I know used his bow in lethal ambushs, but usually pulled out a sword for close work because it would be insane not to.

"Fixing" the archer for 3-4 person parties is outright breaking the archer for large parties. The archer is perfectly viable in 5 person parties, even if he is not going to be the choice of minmaxers.

[Eldariel]

"Fixing" the archer for 3-4 person parties is outright breaking the archer for large parties. The archer is perfectly viable in 5 person parties, even if he is not going to be the choice of minmaxers.

Greatly depends no the 5-man party TBH. And well, the type of Archer; Cleric Archer is viable no matter party size but a Ranger will have trouble outside his Favored Enemies.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Very thorough, but I meant in real life. :smalltongue:

I don't think so. Slings are great little weapons in the hands of someone who practices every day, but it doesn't have any way of penetrating armor (you could use some sort of spiked ammo for piercing padding, but that's about it), and is ultimately a cheaper way to arm skirmishers.

[Gavinfoxx]

Slings work in rain. Bows don't. And slings don't need to penetrate armor, they are bludgeoning and will just solidly ring someone's bell, even through armor.

Some good Sling videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covH4voKukw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivsfp9y9E6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSsbCPeocU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXiUDJRgiUc

[Coidzor]

Should pure archers even be good?

If pure fighters can be, then, yes.


There's really no historical examples of guys rolling around like Legolas, kicking ass in a firefight.

Baseless and illegitimate line of reasoning is baseless and illegitimate.


I don't think so. Slings are great little weapons in the hands of someone who practices every day, but it doesn't have any way of penetrating armor (you could use some sort of spiked ammo for piercing padding, but that's about it), and is ultimately a cheaper way to arm skirmishers.

Well, as long as the armor is good enough that the force of the bullets doesn't give the person hit a nasty day.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nitpick: AA and EK have the same BAB.

And the point is the variety of archery related powers like the enhance arrows ability, imbue arrow (even if you can't cheat the casting time anymore), hail of arrows, ect that the EK doesn't get. Seriously, the ability to add a number of enhancements to arrows with no cost or crafting time, and being able to switch out those enhancements on a daily basis, is a fairly obvious advantage.

My mistake. AA does have full BAB. The thing with those enhancements is, you don't actually *gain* anything till 3 levels in (+1 enhancement! who cares about that first +1?) and even then, the enhancements aren't very good, IMO. +1d6 fire, cold, or electric damage is pretty mediocre; added range doesn't really matter because encounter ranges are stupidly short to begin with; elemental burst is even less useful than the 1d6 energy options were. The ability to get Holy (or whatever alignment type you fancy) is definitely very good. But 9 levels is a long time to wait for that. The other abilities have 1 or few uses per day and really aren't as practical or useful as they are cool-sounding. I'd much rather have EK's casting progression, bonus feats, and effective fighter level. EK's capstone is troublesome to use (have to opt to wait on using any swifts till after your attacks in case one should crit), but it actually pretty nice otherwise.

I agree that Imbue Arrow is nice, though. As I said, shooting a mage w/ an Antimagic Field arrow is made of win.

[Fyermind]

A competent character is about having useful options at your disposal. Archers useful options are fairly limited outside of thirty feet (close enough to walk up to your target and do your stuff in melee).

Within thirty feet they can start trading feats to gain some versatility. They can pin, trip (with certain weapons), disarm, etc.

The real problem with archery as a tactic is that it doesn't play well with teams. The realistic advantage for archers is all the shots they get before melee starts. That means they need several rounds of melee not doing anything. In an all ranged group, archers work very well, especially with caster support. Once you get a melee in the group though, advantages start to disappear pretty quickly because the enemy is doing relevant damage every round.

I like the idea of making archers more versatile, but really I think range of engagement should be thought of like alignment or tiers when designing groups.

[gomipile]

Most of the major issues with the class are fixed by tanking Hank's Energy Bow, the Bow of Winterhold, or some other similar weapon.

I know Hank's Energy Bow and it's source.

What is the Bow of Winterhold, and what is it's source? A Google search for "Bow of Winterhold" in quotes only returns this very thread.

[Talya]

Greatbows are only great if you can get proficiency gratas. It's not worth spending a feat for an extra 1 average damage and an extra 20ft of range. Zen Archery is only great to a druid or cleric archer. Splitting isn't just a great weapon ability, it's a practically mandatory weapon ability which makes it bad design.


I used Zen Archery & Greatbow proficiency on a Goliath Swordsage using Fax Celestis' Falling Star homebrew TOB discipline (mentioned above). Combined with the Goliath's Powerful Build feature, the Greatbow is a 2d8 weapon. Is it worth it over a 2d6 large longbow? Not sure. But imagining how huge the thing was that was firing these intercontinental ballistic arrows at enemies made it worth it, if only for style.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know Hank's Energy Bow and it's source.

What is the Bow of Winterhold, and what is it's source? A Google search for "Bow of Winterhold" in quotes only returns this very thread.

It's Bow of the Wintermoon, from MIC. A relatively cheap "relic" item, whose relic powers are fairly inconsequential and is mostly valued for the adjustable strength rating it gives.

EDIT: Also, here is the PF flat cost +1000 gp weapon property (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/magicArmsAndArmor/weaponSpecialAbilities.html#adaptive) I mentioned earlier.

[Larkas]

My mistake. AA does have full BAB. The thing with those enhancements is, you don't actually *gain* anything till 3 levels in (+1 enhancement! who cares about that first +1?) and even then, the enhancements aren't very good, IMO. +1d6 fire, cold, or electric damage is pretty mediocre; added range doesn't really matter because encounter ranges are stupidly short to begin with; elemental burst is even less useful than the 1d6 energy options were. The ability to get Holy (or whatever alignment type you fancy) is definitely very good. But 9 levels is a long time to wait for that. The other abilities have 1 or few uses per day and really aren't as practical or useful as they are cool-sounding. I'd much rather have EK's casting progression, bonus feats, and effective fighter level. EK's capstone is troublesome to use (have to opt to wait on using any swifts till after your attacks in case one should crit), but it actually pretty nice otherwise.

I agree that Imbue Arrow is nice, though. As I said, shooting a mage w/ an Antimagic Field arrow is made of win.

Have you noticed that PF's AA also increase casting? A 2, 3 or 4 level dip isn't as penalizing as it used to be... Anyways, if you had noticed, just ignore this old man's mumblings :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

Well, as long as the armor is good enough that the force of the bullets doesn't give the person hit a nasty day.

The island of Celtiberria was famous for their mercenary slingers. They practiced hunting squirrels from a tender age. If you wear lots of armors, that means you are moving a lot slower than a squirrel while you head is still smaller than a squirrel. On the battlefield, they carried bags with lead sling bullets for "special occasions".

The physical power an expert slinger can put into a lead bullet that impacts your helmet is in no way inferior to what you would expect from a strong knight wielding a mace. A solid hit will spoil your day in either case, no matter what helmet you are wearing, although the helmet is likely to save your life.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the answer lies in improving the selection of magic arrows available.

First, it lets archers work with the absolute minimum investment: Archers don't have to purchase feats or anything like that. It also goes beyond just creating a single good option for archers, the way a nice base or prestige class would; any archer build can benefit from arrows.

Second, it gives a strong benefit to archery that works not only within the realism of the game world, but also within the mechanics as they currently exist - you don't have to alter the range at which combats happen, or anything like that.

Third, it gives archers something interesting in and of themselves, that melee classes do not really have access to; a melee class can get magical enhancements to their weapons, but because magic weapons are expensive, they're not likely to get a huge boost to versatility out of it. An archer, meanwhile, could select sets of different arrows for different situations, and thus be far more flexible.

I'm imagining archers as being almost like spellcasters, but drawing from a very limited selection of spells. For this to work, it would need to go beyond just "+xd6 of <element> damage"; examples below:

Arrows that mimicked the effect of a bull rush on hit.
Arrows that burst into flame after lodging in the wound, doing continuous damage.
Arrows that exploded upon impact, dealing AoE damage.
Arrows that sprouted vines and attempted to entangle targets.
Arrows that forced flying creatures to the ground, made invisible creatures visible, or rendered ethereal creatures vulnerable to melee attacks.
Arrows that inflicted penalties to attack rolls, AC, or saves.
Arrows that attracted future arrows from the same bow, giving the archer a bonus for successive shots.
Arrows that imposed a failure chance on spellcasting.
Arrows that imposed a confusion-type effect on targets hit.

What does everyone think?

[Fyermind]

The problem is you would end up shooting your enemy full of gold. It would be expensive to be the archer. I'd rather see quiver enhancements personally. Ways where a quiver puts an effect on an arrow sort of like weapon crystals.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

The problem is you would end up shooting your enemy full of gold. It would be expensive to be the archer. I'd rather see quiver enhancements personally. Ways where a quiver puts an effect on an arrow sort of like weapon crystals.

I was thinking of just having ammunition enchantments be low-cost or reusable; maybe have a rule that they don't cost XP to craft, as well. But, a quiver enchantment like that could work - so long as the archer doesn't have to have just one type.

[Balldanor]

The problem is you would end up shooting your enemy full of gold. It would be expensive to be the archer. I'd rather see quiver enhancements personally. Ways where a quiver puts an effect on an arrow sort of like weapon crystals.


If you have a Quiver of Ehlonna, you only need 1 or 2 arrows of each type, then the quiver replicates an unlimited supply of them (if I understand everything correctly)

[13_CBS]

The problem is you would end up shooting your enemy full of gold. It would be expensive to be the archer. I'd rather see quiver enhancements personally. Ways where a quiver puts an effect on an arrow sort of like weapon crystals.

Building on this, what about a series of quivers that have more abilities as they go up in price? Let's say...

Quiver of the Tactical Warrior [placeholder name :smalltongue:]

As a swift action, all arrows held in the quiver are enchanted to bear one of the effects listed by Freaky for 24 hours. A given quiver has a certain number of enchantments you can choose from. You can change the quiver's enchantment to another one that it has as a swift action.

Least version: Contains a few of the enchantments listed by Freaky (maybe 3 or so).

Lesser version: Contains a moderate number of the enchantments listed by Freaky (maybe 5 or 6).

Greater version: Contains all of the enchantments listed by Freaky.

So, someone equipped with a Least Tactical Quiver with the Bull Rush, AoE effect, Entangling enchantments starts with the arrows in his quiver enchanted with Bull Rush. He discovers that he's up against big monsters that would be hard to Bull Rush, so as a Swift Action he has his quiver enchant all the arrows in his quiver to Entangle instead. The next round, the big monster shrinks in size for whatever reason, so as a Swift Action he switches his quiver's enchantment back to Bull Rush.

I dunno exactly how much each quiver should cost, someone else will have to come up with that...

[Thunndarr]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the answer lies in improving the selection of magic arrows available.

First, it lets archers work with the absolute minimum investment: Archers don't have to purchase feats or anything like that. It also goes beyond just creating a single good option for archers, the way a nice base or prestige class would; any archer build can benefit from arrows.

Second, it gives a strong benefit to archery that works not only within the realism of the game world, but also within the mechanics as they currently exist - you don't have to alter the range at which combats happen, or anything like that.

Third, it gives archers something interesting in and of themselves, that melee classes do not really have access to; a melee class can get magical enhancements to their weapons, but because magic weapons are expensive, they're not likely to get a huge boost to versatility out of it. An archer, meanwhile, could select sets of different arrows for different situations, and thus be far more flexible.

I'm imagining archers as being almost like spellcasters, but drawing from a very limited selection of spells. For this to work, it would need to go beyond just "+xd6 of <element> damage"; examples below:

Arrows that mimicked the effect of a bull rush on hit.
Arrows that burst into flame after lodging in the wound, doing continuous damage.
Arrows that exploded upon impact, dealing AoE damage.
Arrows that sprouted vines and attempted to entangle targets.
Arrows that forced flying creatures to the ground, made invisible creatures visible, or rendered ethereal creatures vulnerable to melee attacks.
Arrows that inflicted penalties to attack rolls, AC, or saves.
Arrows that attracted future arrows from the same bow, giving the archer a bonus for successive shots.
Arrows that imposed a failure chance on spellcasting.
Arrows that imposed a confusion-type effect on targets hit.

What does everyone think?

Seemed to work pretty well for Hawkeye.

[nedz]

If you have a Quiver of Ehlonna, you only need 1 or 2 arrows of each type, then the quiver replicates an unlimited supply of them (if I understand everything correctly)

No this is just a bag for holding arrows, or javelins or spears. Strangely it's not in the SRD so I can't post a link, but it's easy enough to look up.

[rexreg]

my group has used "Dead Eye" from an old Dragon Magazine, allowing an archer to add his Dex to damage w/in 30'

[Larkas]

my group has used "Dead Eye" from an old Dragon Magazine, allowing an archer to add his Dex to damage w/in 30'

It's in Dragon Compendium as well. It was errata'ed to need a BAB of only +1, by the way.

[ArcturusV]

Honestly it shouldn't even be a feat. Should just be built in, maybe up to first range increment rather than 30'.

[Fyermind]

To run a quiver enhancement system I'd actually call them quiver crystals. They would enhance one arrow per round. You could place any number on your quiver, in a specific order, and they would act in that order.

[TuggyNE]

You can Ready a Standard Action to use Manyshot or Greater Manyshot. This allows you to easily disrupt an an enemy caster's spell or manifester's power from anywhere on the battlefield if you beat them in Initiative.

Nice long listing, but I'm curious about this in particular: would this trigger one Concentration check, at an unbeatably high DC (for total damage from all the arrows), or one check per shot, at a DC that is merely fairly high?


No this is just a bag for holding arrows, or javelins or spears. Strangely it's not in the SRD so I can't post a link, but it's easy enough to look up.

Isn't it renamed the Efficient Quiver (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#efficientQuiver)?

[VanIsleKnight]

Archers can potentially have all the best utility if they work in conjunction with a spellcaster, and the players are creative. Imagine Hawkeye with his ridiculous types of arrows, but magnify that by magic. And I don't mean just having +2 flaming shocking burst arrows. A fair amount of spells can be cast on objects that people don't think to stick on an arrow and let loose 100 feet in some direction.

For a very simple example, Haley's smokestick trick. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Isn't it renamed the Efficient Quiver (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#efficientQuiver)?

Yes, that's the thing.
Why do they rename these things ?
Are they afraid of being sued by an elven god for IP issues ?:smallconfused:

[TuggyNE]

Yes, that's the thing.
Why do they rename these things ?
Are they afraid of being sued by an elven god for IP issues ?:smallconfused:

Heh, no. Ehlonna is, as near as I can figure, product identity for a particular setting, though, and anything of that sort gets renamed. (So mage's magnificent mansion instead of Mordenkainen's, acid arrow without the Melf's, secure shelter without the Leomund's, and so on.)

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

If nobody has brought up Lars Andersen, it's worth considering that archery is perhaps the only martial style in D&D wherein a twentieth-level character attacks fewer times in a six-second round than a real live person.

[Talderas]

If nobody has brought up Lars Andersen, it's worth considering that archery is perhaps the only martial style in D&D wherein a twentieth-level character attacks fewer times in a six-second round than a real live person.

Lars can do 10 arrows in 4.9 seconds. Number 2 in the world was 10 arrows in 10 seconds. Let's compare those to what you can do in a single full attack action.

+16 BAB: 4 attacks
Haste or Speed weapon: +1 attack
Whirling Frenzy (-2 penalty): +1 attack
Arrow Swarm (-5 penalty) or Rapid Shot (-2 penalty, 0 with Imp. Rapid Shot): +2 attacks / +1 attack

That means 8 or 7 arrows in 6 seconds. It's not better than Lars but it is better than the world #2. That's of course ignoring the epic feat that lets you fire an arrow at everything within 30ft.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's worth noting your calculation includes magic items or magical buffs, which I would imagine Mr. Andersen does not have, and moderate-to-steep penalties on accuracy, while Mr. Andersen retains a pretty impressive degree of accuracy, insofar as I recall. So a super-heroic fantasy archer with magical aid can shoot fewer arrows in six seconds, arguably less accurately, than a guy from Denmark who spent three years training can shoot in under five.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

If nobody has brought up Lars Andersen, it's worth considering that archery is perhaps the only martial style in D&D wherein a twentieth-level character attacks fewer times in a six-second round than a real live person.

...I can throw a lot more than five punches in six seconds. And I have 0 training in boxing, or any martial art that involves striking.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Well, yeah, but you can't throw more than five punches that hit twice as hard as a bastard sword in six seconds.

[Godskook]

Archery, as an archetype is perfectly fine. It doesn't stand up to spellcasting because nothing stands up to spellcasting.

A good archer build, however, can easily handle everything else in the monster manual due to the superior mobility that never having to be in melee brings.

Also, to bring in something from League of Legends, a game I'm not sure everyone here plays, what I've noticed is that target-selection and safety are very important parts of being the member of a team that's putting most of their share of the party gold into offensive itemization. So much is this valued that short range champions will almost always outduel the ranged character, but are still considered weaker in many cases.

If your DM is providing varied encounters that prevent the party from closing to melee against 'squishy' backliners consistently, then archers have a place as being able to hit these foes and take them out of the fight early, as well as picking off weak runners(I've had the survival of a party hinge on their archer picking off a running enemy soldier).

Also, I will point out that by the time the team starts buying ~+4 weapons, Archers start being able to carry 'specialty' arrows for a low cost that provide exceedingly powerful damage. Bane arrows, especially provide +2d6+2 damage for as a "+2" arrow. Also, Archers benefit *VERY* highly from a party Artificer who can customize arrows to fit the current villains.

[JaronK]

Of course, it's totally possible to create archers that fire arbitrarily high numbers of shots per round for arbitrary amounts of damage. Cheese required, of course, but it's doable.

JaronK