Archery in 5e

[Drake S.]

Don't know if anyone else has seen this video of a guy who has studied archery and war archers in history, but see if it might inspire you to adjust some rules for archery in your games. His name is Lars Andersen and the dude is a beast with a bow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

At 3:25, I did not see hardly any disadvantage with him using a longbow from a distance of 2-3 feet and in a sitting position no less.

Anyways, I'm still new to DND, but I was curious if seeing something like this would inspire anyone. I think typically, a lot of us tend to think of archery as how it is depicted in modern-day archery and Hollywood-inspired versions, but this vid makes some good points about how ancient archery in combat and war played a pivotal role in battle. As opposed to melee and casting, I've always considered archery getting the short end of the stick.

What do you think?

[Eslin]

Melee and archery get the short end of the stick compared to casting, not archery gets the short end of the stick compared to the other two. In general, archery is just pure damage, which is very boring - at least with melee you can trip, shove etc. Unless you're a battlemaster, archery is functionally identical to using one cantrip over and over for the entire game in how it is played.

[JFahy]

At 3:25, I did not see hardly any disadvantage with him using a longbow from a distance of 2-3 feet and in a sitting position no less.


Without a swordsman threatening his life and the integrity of his bow, the
disadvantage wouldn't show up all that well. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

At 3:25, I did not see hardly any disadvantage with him using a longbow from a distance of 2-3 feet and in a sitting position no less.

Anyways, I'm still new to DND, but I was curious if seeing something like this would inspire anyone. I think typically, a lot of us tend to think of archery as how it is depicted in modern-day archery and Hollywood-inspired versions, but this vid makes some good points about how ancient archery in combat and war played a pivotal role in battle. As opposed to melee and casting, I've always considered archery getting the short end of the stick.

That video is a bunch of trick shooting with a low weight bow, and while the trick shooting is pretty impressive the historical claims made run from well known to anyone with a background in archerty to dubious at best. As for the disadvantage at close range, notice that the target isn't moving - someone 5 feet away moving a bit changes the angle to hit them a lot, though getting off one last shot on someone getting close isn't actually all that hard.

In short, this isn't a good video for realism purposes. If you're aiming for something cinematic, it works just fine. On the mechanical side though, archery is fine in 5e.

[Slipperychicken]

What do you think?

He's obviously a level 20 fighter with sharpshooter.


Melee and archery get the short end of the stick compared to casting, not archery gets the short end of the stick compared to the other two. In general, archery is just pure damage, which is very boring - at least with melee you can trip, shove etc. Unless you're a battlemaster, archery is functionally identical to using one cantrip over and over for the entire game in how it is played.

5e allows disarm to work with ranged attacks. A ranged attacker could shoot the weapon out of an opponent's hand, allowing allies in melee to pick it up and deny the enemy his weapon. Also, ranged combat enables kiting, which can be good tactically. For instance, one could attack enemies from range, forcing goading them to pursue into a prepared area where the rest of the party is waiting with cover, traps, caltrops, ball-bearings, and other unpleasantries.

[Person_Man]

+1 to Eslin's comment.

Full casters get a large range of options. Their at-will cantrips deal less damage, but still enough to be useful. They can deal massive damage with spells if they can catch a group of enemies within an area of effect, but can only do so limited times per day, and generally have better things to do. Full caster classes are specifically designed for players who prefer complexity.

Non-casters get superior damage output most of the time. 1/3 to 1/2-ish of their class abilities are dedicated to it, and they get a one or two more Ability Score Increases/Feats which can improve it further (or provide them with some additional non-damage options). Whether they do it with Melee or Ranged attacks is mostly fiddling on the margins. Melee can Shove or Grapple and maybe gets Opportunity Attacks. Ranged gets to stand farther away from enemies and is potentially safer sometimes. The damage is roughly comparable either way, though Barbarian and Paladin are specifically set up to do melee while the Ranger and Rogue slightly favor ranged. Non-caster classes are specifically designed for players who prefer simplicity. So archery isn't "screwed" in this edition - its meeting its intended purpose.

[Drake S.]

Without a swordsman threatening his life and the integrity of his bow, the
disadvantage wouldn't show up all that well. :smallwink:

True, but he was sitting in this case. Given his other movements and the ability to catch a freaking arrow in midair and refire it would suggest that's he's got an amazingly good eye for movement. I can picture a melee fighter attacking him and he would be able to easily dodge the blow, and counter with an arrow to the eye at close range. Or an arrow to the knee if you're ever in Skyrim. :belkar:

Either way, I don't know for sure since I am far from an expert. I'm just enjoying the discussion.

[Drake S.]

In general, archery is just pure damage, which is very boring

Here, I would disagree. It may not be often, but from an RP perspective you can come up with some awesome scenarios if the die rolls are right. You can get some pretty awesome Robin Hood-worthy moments that make for really cool stories if done right.

Example: Facing a Centaur who was trying to force me to kill off a man, whom I deemed as innocent(given my lawful nature) but whom he insisted was guilty and deserving of death simply because he built a farm near the centaur's lands. He had an arrow aimed at the guy and I already had my arrow notched and aimed as I was trying to get him to stop. He fires, and I asked the GM if I could knock his arrow out with my own. He allowed it, but it needed to be a nat 20. I said "what the hell" and went for it. BOOM. Nat 20. Knocked the arrow out in midair and saved the old man.

Another centaur killed the old man later though, but still, that moment was pretty awesome to say the least. I would also say that archery could come in handy when trying to be sneaky as well. Take out enemies before they know what hit them and in sniping situations. During all out battle, yeah, it could be very boring as it is just damage, but from an RP perspective, it can get pretty fun I think, which more than makes up for the fact that it is damage only. At least I think so.

[CrusaderJoe]

He's obviously a level 20 fighter with sharpshooter.



5e allows disarm to work with ranged attacks. A ranged attacker could shoot the weapon out of an opponent's hand, allowing allies in melee to pick it up and deny the enemy his weapon. Also, ranged combat enables kiting, which can be good tactically. For instance, one could attack enemies from range, forcing goading them to pursue into a prepared area where the rest of the party is waiting with cover, traps, caltrops, ball-bearings, and other unpleasantries.

Since magic exist I would think that someone that can do what he does would be a level 1 or 3 Fighter.

Magic doesn't exist in the real world and yet wizard can do it in this game. So something that can be perdormed in real life, or somewhat performed, should also be available or easily done in the game.

In real life? Yeah that guy is a master at what he does. In D&D he should be level 1 and let's build everything from there.

[mephnick]

I don't know, archery is the most boring style in every single game I've ever played, be it table-top, MMO or video game.

The safety of distance always means combat is less interesting. Unless you're a caster of course!

[Slipperychicken]

I don't know, archery is the most boring style in every single game I've ever played, be it table-top, MMO or video game.

The safety of distance always means combat is less interesting. Unless you're a caster of course!

A good game will generally give some kind of options for its ranged PCs. Pathfinder, for instance, has a wide variety of arrow-types to choose from. I played a ranged, mounted character in PF and had so many ammo types that there was almost always some decision to be made (usually about where to move and which ammo to use), not to mention the fact he had some backup melee weapons to use.

If you ask me, I think melee is the most boring in tabletop. At least with ranged, you need to position yourself intelligently, make a decision or two about it, and care about cover/concealment. A melee character usually just runs at the nearest opponent, clobbers it until it stops moving, and maybe tries to pull off a combo.

[SharkForce]

Don't know if anyone else has seen this video of a guy who has studied archery and war archers in history, but see if it might inspire you to adjust some rules for archery in your games. His name is Lars Andersen and the dude is a beast with a bow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

At 3:25, I did not see hardly any disadvantage with him using a longbow from a distance of 2-3 feet and in a sitting position no less.

Anyways, I'm still new to DND, but I was curious if seeing something like this would inspire anyone. I think typically, a lot of us tend to think of archery as how it is depicted in modern-day archery and Hollywood-inspired versions, but this vid makes some good points about how ancient archery in combat and war played a pivotal role in battle. As opposed to melee and casting, I've always considered archery getting the short end of the stick.

What do you think?

what do I think?

I think this video shows up an awful lot in internet discussions about archery, and yet the guy in the video is mysteriously absent from serious competitive archery contests for someone who *appears* to be making dozens of accurate shots consistently with incredible speed. almost as if he probably had to do many takes to get those shots. almost as if his "ancient techniques" which were supposedly how archers really fought hundreds of years ago probably don't work all that well.

also, almost as if that bow has barely any draw strength, by the look of it.

[Kaeso]

Lars Andersens feats are certainly impressive and a display of mobility and accuracy, but for all that he's only up against targets. Even against an unarmored human, simply hitting them with an arrow is not enough to kill them unless you happen to hit a vital space like somewhere in the face or throat. Its most likely that his shots, impressive as they are, would result in mostly flesh wounds in a combat scenario: annoying and painful, but not enough to stop the angry guy with the large axe from killing you. If he's wearing heavy plate armor, something not even longbows could pierce, then the entire point is moot altogether. Keep in mind that a late medieval knight would wear something under that plate armor as well, usually a combination of chainmail and a gambeson. You'd have to pierce all that just to get to his skin.

It's impressive, but as long as he's not firing at something representative of someone wearing even light armor in a combat scenario, it remains nothing more than a very impressive trick.

[Easy_Lee]

+1 to Eslin's comment.

Full casters get a large range of options. Their at-will cantrips deal less damage, but still enough to be useful. They can deal massive damage with spells if they can catch a group of enemies within an area of effect, but can only do so limited times per day, and generally have better things to do. Full caster classes are specifically designed for players who prefer complexity.

Non-casters get superior damage output most of the time. 1/3 to 1/2-ish of their class abilities are dedicated to it, and they get a one or two more Ability Score Increases/Feats which can improve it further (or provide them with some additional non-damage options). Whether they do it with Melee or Ranged attacks is mostly fiddling on the margins. Melee can Shove or Grapple and maybe gets Opportunity Attacks. Ranged gets to stand farther away from enemies and is potentially safer sometimes. The damage is roughly comparable either way, though Barbarian and Paladin are specifically set up to do melee while the Ranger and Rogue slightly favor ranged. Non-caster classes are specifically designed for players who prefer simplicity. So archery isn't "screwed" in this edition - its meeting its intended purpose.

I would also note that archery is the most accurate, and therefore consistent, damage in the game. Archery fighting style adding +2 hit is huge. In addition to that, since it's likely magic damage after a certain level and since Sharpshooter is a thing, archers can really pull ahead in the at-will damage department.

I perceive archers as being encouraged to use their skills and the terrain more heavily, setting themselves up in exactly the right position to guarantee an easy fight. Consider an assassin / champion or battle master hybrid archer. For anyone who's ever played a stealth-archer in Skyrim, I imagine it's kind of like that.

[Eslin]

what do I think?

I think this video shows up an awful lot in internet discussions about archery, and yet the guy in the video is mysteriously absent from serious competitive archery contests for someone who *appears* to be making dozens of accurate shots consistently with incredible speed. almost as if he probably had to do many takes to get those shots. almost as if his "ancient techniques" which were supposedly how archers really fought hundreds of years ago probably don't work all that well.

also, almost as if that bow has barely any draw strength, by the look of it.

He's a trick archer. He does archery tricks. It's neat, but not a useful comparison for warfare in the same way that a sword twirler or a guy doing gun tricks isn't.

[CrusaderJoe]

He's a trick archer. He does archery tricks. It's neat, but not a useful comparison for warfare in the same way that a sword twirler or a guy doing gun tricks isn't.

Or a guy using magic to try and conjure a demon.

[Easy_Lee]

He's a trick archer. He does archery tricks. It's neat, but not a useful comparison for warfare in the same way that a sword twirler or a guy doing gun tricks isn't.

Speaking of trick archery, trying to pull off trick shots and other such is an easy way to make archery quite a bit more fun.

That kind of RP thing is an element many forget. Back in 3.5, when I played a basic thrower-rogue in a party of casters and warblades, I entertained myself by hiding in people's backpacks before combat and pickpocketing people all the time. I outlived those munchkins, too.

[SharkForce]

He's a trick archer. He does archery tricks. It's neat, but not a useful comparison for warfare in the same way that a sword twirler or a guy doing gun tricks isn't.

yes, I get that.

the person who made that video apparently doesn't, because that's not at all what the narration would suggest. and it certainly isn't at all what the typical person that posts it and tries to make the argument that machine-gun ROF with a bow is perfectly reasonable is suggesting, either.

it's a neat trick. he is indeed very fast with a bow, and the fact that he can make those shots at all, whether with one take or several, is impressive. and if the video basically said "hey look at these cool tricks I can do with a bow at extremely short range", I'd be like "yeah, that's pretty cool". on the flip side when it says "look at this ancient technique I've rediscovered which nobody else in the whole world has figured out because they're all so stupid that they're using dumb techniques that are dumb", I tend to discount it entirely, because clearly the person making the video has no clue what they're talking about, and the person trying to use the video to justify how realistic it is to shoot all the things with a bow as fast as a machine gun has about as much understanding of what they're talking about as the person who made the video.

[Eslin]

yes, I get that.

the person who made that video apparently doesn't, because that's not at all what the narration would suggest. and it certainly isn't at all what the typical person that posts it and tries to make the argument that machine-gun ROF with a bow is perfectly reasonable is suggesting, either.

it's a neat trick. he is indeed very fast with a bow, and the fact that he can make those shots at all, whether with one take or several, is impressive. and if the video basically said "hey look at these cool tricks I can do with a bow at extremely short range", I'd be like "yeah, that's pretty cool". on the flip side when it says "look at this ancient technique I've rediscovered which nobody else in the whole world has figured out because they're all so stupid that they're using dumb techniques that are dumb", I tend to discount it entirely, because clearly the person making the video has no clue what they're talking about, and the person trying to use the video to justify how realistic it is to shoot all the things with a bow as fast as a machine gun has about as much understanding of what they're talking about as the person who made the video.

Oh, ok. I'm functionally deaf, didn't get the narration. Just watched the video and saw someone doing neat tricks with a bow.

[Knaight]

Or a guy using magic to try and conjure a demon.

The existence of magic in a setting is hardly a reason to throw out realistic behavior for everything. It's an indication that realism isn't a high priority and can be consciously and deliberately strayed from when appropriate. Personally, I'd rather my archers look a little more like hunters, military archers, etc. most of the time.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that DMs can allow for any kind of combat maneuvers they want as an improvised action. There's a reason why Disarm, Sunder, Overrun, etc, are not in the rules. They're fiddly and highly situational. If the DM wants to allow a Green Arrow style trick archer in the game, its pretty simple to do. Player declares what they'd like to happen, makes a normal attack roll, and if it hits, the DM decides what happens in place of (or in addition to) damage.

[CrusaderJoe]

The existence of magic in a setting is hardly a reason to throw out realistic behavior for everything. It's an indication that realism isn't a high priority and can be consciously and deliberately strayed from when appropriate. Personally, I'd rather my archers look a little more like hunters, military archers, etc. most of the time.

Who said throw out all realism/realistic behavior? I'm saying you can't use it as an excuse to not allow martial to be awesome when you are allowing casters to even exist. And since these tricks are realistic in some way, adding them to a game is not throwing out realistic behaivoir at all. It is setting the bar of realistic behavior at a different level than the real world.

Which is exactly what we do with magic. We set the realism/realistic behavior at a different level and just hand wave it in.

If you keep them the same then all wizards in D&D would be rogues with proficiency and expertise in Sleight of Hand, Deception, and Arcana. The arcana is to make smoke bombs and mirrors.

We don't want that for magic so why would we want that for martial?


It's also worth mentioning that DMs can allow for any kind of combat maneuvers they want as an improvised action. There's a reason why Disarm, Sunder, Overrun, etc, are not in the rules. They're fiddly and highly situational. If the DM wants to allow a Green Arrow style trick archer in the game, its pretty simple to do. Player declares what they'd like to happen, makes a normal attack roll, and if it hits, the DM decides what happens in place of (or in addition to damage).

The problem is that you never really know what you are going to get. Going into a game as a caster doesn't require special privileged to do X/Y/Z, especially not at sanctioned games. But if you go in wanting to use maneuvers you have to get permission to okay your character.

And that's messed up.

If you want to be a martial who uses skills... You have no clue how hard or easy a basic skill will be. One DM may say that using athletics to open doors that aren't wood is stupid and thus make the DC 50, because of whatever going on in their head. The other DM may realize that this is a fantasy game and set the DC at 10. But because your last DM made it impossible to do so... You don't know you can athletics that metal door off its hinges.

Meanwhile casters know exactly what they can or can't do. It says so in the spell. You can go from table to table and they will always do the same thing (unless a soell is banned). And the spell DCs math is in favor of the caster already...

One part of the game has rules and the other part of the game is playing Calvin Ball.

Edit: And once a DM allows one player to do something special then others will ask for something special... Which can lead to lots of crap. I've met quite a few DMs who hate that slippery slope and won't even get started with it.

Edit: And is this is a realistic behavior then what should a fantasy game set it to?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

[pwykersotz]

The problem is that you never really know what you are going to get. Going into a game as a caster doesn't require special privileged to do X/Y/Z, especially not at sanctioned games. But if you go in wanting to use maneuvers you have to get permission to okay your character.

And that's messed up.

If you want to be a martial who uses skills... You have no clue how hard or easy a basic skill will be. One DM may say that using athletics to open doors that aren't wood is stupid and thus make the DC 50, because of whatever going on in their head. The other DM may realize that this is a fantasy game and set the DC at 10. But because your last DM made it impossible to do so... You don't know you can athletics that metal door off its hinges.

Meanwhile casters know exactly what they can or can't do. It says so in the spell. You can go from table to table and they will always do the same thing (unless a soell is banned). And the spell DCs math is in favor of the caster already...

One part of the game has rules and the other part of the game is playing Calvin Ball.

Edit: And once a DM allows one player to do something special then others will ask for something special... Which can lead to lots of crap. I've met quite a few DMs who hate that slippery slope and won't even get started with it.

The opposite can be inferred. That casters having codified spells is a crutch that inhibits play. I can definitely attest that the slowest part of my games right now is casters having to look up their spells constantly to remember exactly what they do since we're all used to the 3.5 spells of the same name.

[Balor777]

I see many of you guys here are quick to judge.
I dont know how much involved are you guys on sports or handcraft or art.
This guy has awesome accurasy even shooting rapidly.Now try to realise that
speed comes ALLWAYS from good accurasy.Painting/welding/Doing baskeball shoots,
soccer shoots,buchering and 500 other things you do with your hands, you can succesfuly perfom it
quick if you are accurate with it.
He would miss all the time if he was just quick.Accuracy let you shoot fast and hit the targets.
Hitting a guy in full plate from 5 ft swinging at him?Maybe not. But give this guy 10ft rage and im sure he
will shoot the full plate guy in the mouth if he has an open or half helmet of course.

[CrusaderJoe]

The opposite can be inferred. That casters having codified spells is a crutch that inhibits play. I can definitely attest that the slowest part of my games right now is casters having to look up their spells constantly to remember exactly what they do since we're all used to the 3.5 spells of the same name.

You are talking about a different issue. Speed of play due to inexperienced players or not having basic tools (spell cards) is a totally separate issue.

If the 5e casters couldn't do so much then it would be a problem that they have a set specific list of abilities. However you can mold and design your caster to do whatever you want. Do you want to blow stuff up? Do you want to fly around and rain lightning down? Do you want to play a telepath? Want to build a castle/stronghold/building quickly? Want to travel the cosmos and hop from plane to plane? You may not be able to do everything everyday like in 3.5, but you can be diverse enough and still be effective in combat.

Yeah if casters didn't have insane options you would be right. And I would have the same issues with it. However that is simply not the case.

[pwykersotz]

You are talking about a different issue. Speed of play due to inexperienced players or not having basic tools (spell cards) is a totally separate issue.

If the 5e casters couldn't do so much then it would be a problem that they have a set specific list of abilities. However you can mold and design your caster to do whatever you want. Do you want to blow stuff up? Do you want to fly around and rain lightning down? Do you want to play a telepath? Want to build a castle/stronghold/building quickly? Want to travel the cosmos and hop from plane to plane? You may not be able to do everything everyday like in 3.5, but you can be diverse enough and still be effective in combat.

Yeah if casters didn't have insane options you would be right. And I would have the same issues with it. However that is simply not the case.

Speed of play was a small illustration, not my overall point.

It takes a special sort of obsession to have all the spells memorized (familiarity) and spell cards are not standard. That you think these things ought to be normal shows a strong preference for the exact type of thing 5e was geared to largely avoid...nuanced and complex systems/rules.

And I'm not sure what you mean by that last bit. Most of the caster options are a problem mainly because they are too detailed and explicit in a game where very little else is, often leading to a rules-lawyer reading which breaks them even further.

Edit: I've recognized I'm on a tangent from the thread, I'll respectfully drop off here.

[Knaight]

Who said throw out all realism/realistic behavior? I'm saying you can't use it as an excuse to not allow martial to be awesome when you are allowing casters to even exist. And since these tricks are realistic in some way, adding them to a game is not throwing out realistic behaivoir at all. It is setting the bar of realistic behavior at a different level than the real world.

Which is exactly what we do with magic. We set the realism/realistic behavior at a different level and just hand wave it in.

If you keep them the same then all wizards in D&D would be rogues with proficiency and expertise in Sleight of Hand, Deception, and Arcana. The arcana is to make smoke bombs and mirrors.

We don't want that for magic so why would we want that for martial?
The entire point of magic is that it is some sort of system that breaks the normal rules in some way. If people are going in for playing a mage, that's probably what they want to do. I think 5e could have toned down the mages more than they did, and something like a hefty penalty the round after a spell (or until a short rest after a spell) to everything the mage does would be appreciated, but there's still some level of rules breaking.

By no means does that mean that there should be any for martial characters. It's a completely different case that falls or stands on its own merits. I'd say that the genre convention suggests that martial characters should be able to pull of feats at least somewhat beyond the real world, with things like hewing through stuff they by right shouldn't, holding their own in a grapple with much larger creatures, pin point accuracy at long range, etc. fitting in that.

Also, not basing the archery off of a trick shot demonstration is hardly "an excuse to not allow martial to be awesome". There are plenty of awesome, practical things in real life combat. That armored fighting video you linked has a few, and coming back to archery there's long distance sniping, the Parthian shot (in which you ride up on a horse, wheel around, and shoot straight behind you at fairly close range). This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8M00PRbI3c) (skip to 2:40) is pretty impressive, and it's well below historical standards.

Given that all that is there to draw from, I hardly think that trick shooting should be brought in as some sort of standard. It certainly shouldn't be brought in as representing anything it's not. That's not to say that an archer specializing in lots of close range shots shouldn't be doable, just that setting this up as some real world standard and extrapolating from there using it as a level 1 equivalent while justifying doing so by magic being in the game isn't particularly reasonable as a default play style.


If you want to be a martial who uses skills... You have no clue how hard or easy a basic skill will be. One DM may say that using athletics to open doors that aren't wood is stupid and thus make the DC 50, because of whatever going on in their head. The other DM may realize that this is a fantasy game and set the DC at 10. But because your last DM made it impossible to do so... You don't know you can athletics that metal door off its hinges.

Meanwhile casters know exactly what they can or can't do. It says so in the spell. You can go from table to table and they will always do the same thing (unless a soell is banned). And the spell DCs math is in favor of the caster already...

One part of the game has rules and the other part of the game is playing Calvin Ball.
It's hardly Calvin Ball. There's a fairly narrow range you'll see with any reasonable GM, the expected range will likely be communicated, and even if it isn't communicated directly you'll probably see enough of what NPC opponents do to get a feel for things. It trades consistency between tables for customizability and speed at one table. Personally, that's a trade I'm more than willing to make.


Edit: And is this is a realistic behavior then what should a fantasy game set it to?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
That's some basic acrobatics, some grappling, and some good aim with weapons. It's a good demonstration of just how bad some armor myths are, particularly as regards the drastically exaggerated weight, mobility impairment, etc. that leads to nonsense like "knights needed a crane to get up on their horse" and "if you fall down in plate armor you can't get up" (though the latter of these at least has some real basis, in that it's a drastically truncated version of "if you're fatigued, wearing plate armor, and fall off a horse into deep sticky mud you're not getting up particularly quickly"). It's a nice video to have, as those are some persistent myths that refuse to die and get ever more irritating, but it's not all that shocking to anyone with rudimentary armor knowledge.

[Person_Man]

The problem is that you never really know what you are going to get. Going into a game as a caster doesn't require special privileged to do X/Y/Z, especially not at sanctioned games. But if you go in wanting to use maneuvers you have to get permission to okay your character.

And that's messed up.

So I get that. The point that I'm trying to make is that in 5E, if you want to do a wide variety of different things, you play a spellcaster. You can also easily refluff spellcasting and say that you're using archery or Tome of Battle style maneuvers or whatever. Non-casters mechanics are designed to be simple for players who enjoy more simple gameplay, no resource management, etc. Making the archery rules inherently complex goes directly against the intended design goal.

Not every class or weapon or whatever needs to be capable of doing all things equally well using its preferred methodology. Otherwise, there is really no point to having a class based system with different methodologies at all.

[archaeo]

Not every class or weapon or whatever needs to be capable of doing all things equally well using its preferred methodology. Otherwise, there is really no point to having a class based system with different methodologies at all.

Well said.

I'd also point out that it seems like most martial classes would do well to have melee and archery weapons handy, as there aren't many disadvantages to doing so. You can focus on one or the other, especially if you pick the right feats, but having a sidearm will always be a good idea, and there aren't very many barriers to doing so.

[Eslin]

So I get that. The point that I'm trying to make is that in 5E, if you want to do a wide variety of different things, you play a spellcaster. You can also easily refluff spellcasting and say that you're using archery or Tome of Battle style maneuvers or whatever. Non-casters mechanics are designed to be simple for players who enjoy more simple gameplay, no resource management, etc. Making the archery rules inherently complex goes directly against the intended design goal.

Not every class or weapon or whatever needs to be capable of doing all things equally well using its preferred methodology. Otherwise, there is really no point to having a class based system with different methodologies at all.
And the point that has been made many times in response is maybe people don't want to have to play a caster when they want to do a wide variety of different things. Combat wise late 3.5 and 4e proved that you could have a wide variety of abilities without having to be a proper spellcaster, and that they didn't include any classes like that in 5e is its biggest flaw - though since it's a modular system it's a flaw that will disappear once they release said options.


It's hardly Calvin Ball. There's a fairly narrow range you'll see with any reasonable GM, the expected range will likely be communicated, and even if it isn't communicated directly you'll probably see enough of what NPC opponents do to get a feel for things. It trades consistency between tables for customizability and speed at one table. Personally, that's a trade I'm more than willing to make.
Except that's not true. What a GM will let ability checks and improvised combat maneuvers varies tremendously from table to table, while spellcasting doesn't - fireball's going to do 8d6 fire damage dexterity save for half no matter where you are, and that makes game balance impossible - how do you figure out how useful a fighter is compared to a wizard when a wizard's abilities are the same at every table but what a fighter can achieve beyond 'I attack/I grapple/I push or shove' varies constantly based on the DM? Come to think of it, maybe that's one of the reasons fightbariangers are so use impaired this edition.


The opposite can be inferred. That casters having codified spells is a crutch that inhibits play. I can definitely attest that the slowest part of my games right now is casters having to look up their spells constantly to remember exactly what they do since we're all used to the 3.5 spells of the same name.

So don't let someone play a caster if they're not going to come prepared.

[Easy_Lee]

And the point that has been made many times in response is maybe people don't want to have to play a caster when they want to do a wide variety of different things. Combat wise late 3.5 and 4e proved that you could have a wide variety of abilities without having to be a proper spellcaster, and that they didn't include any classes like that in 5e is its biggest flaw - though since it's a modular system it's a flaw that will disappear once they release said options.

No one has to play a caster by any means. Back in 3.5e, not playing a caster in a party of casters meant constantly feeling overshadowed. Never in all of 3.5e's history did they release anything that was much more game-breakingly overpowered than the core wizard. If you could think it, there was a way for the wizard to do it, often on-the-fly.

Now, not playing a caster means possibly having less storytelling power outside of combat, unless you find creative uses for your skills. That's about it. In combat, everyone is pretty close to balanced now, with casters having big spells that can win a fight, but seldom will in practice due to saves. Every mundane class, even the fighter, will have battle situations where it shines, doing something a pure caster couldn't replicate. And if the DM handles rests right, then casters won't want to use their limited resources anyway, until they absolutely must.

[Person_Man]

And the point that has been made many times in response is maybe people don't want to have to play a caster when they want to do a wide variety of different things. Combat wise late 3.5 and 4e proved that you could have a wide variety of abilities without having to be a proper spellcaster, and that they didn't include any classes like that in 5e is its biggest flaw - though since it's a modular system it's a flaw that will disappear once they release said options.

So I think that's its pretty much inevitable that WotC will release supplements that make more complex non-caster options. They want money. There's always been a demand for it. Therefore they will probably supply it.

To me, the more interesting question will be whether or not those options are balanced against the simple options. If they release a new Warblade subclass for the Fighter, will the Battlemaster and Champion become completely obsolete and/or clearly a weaker choice? Or will they release a 5.5 edition, upgrade all of the simple class options, and include a wider array of more complicated options.

[Eslin]

No one has to play a caster by any means. Back in 3.5e, not playing a caster in a party of casters meant constantly feeling overshadowed. Never in all of 3.5e's history did they release anything that was much more game-breakingly overpowered than the core wizard. If you could think it, there was a way for the wizard to do it, often on-the-fly.

Now, not playing a caster means possibly having less storytelling power outside of combat, unless you find creative uses for your skills. That's about it. In combat, everyone is pretty close to balanced now, with casters having big spells that can win a fight, but seldom will in practice due to saves. Every mundane class, even the fighter, will have battle situations where it shines, doing something a pure caster couldn't replicate. And if the DM handles rests right, then casters won't want to use their limited resources anyway, until they absolutely must.

That's not what I was saying. We've discussed power and versatility before, but I never mentioned those here - I was talking about having options in the way that a martial character who can only do damage by saying 'I attack' does not.


So I think that's its pretty much inevitable that WotC will release supplements that make more complex non-caster options. They want money. There's always been a demand for it. Therefore they will probably supply it.

To me, the more interesting question will be whether or not those options are balanced against the simple options. If they release a new Warblade subclass for the Fighter, will the Battlemaster and Champion become completely obsolete and/or clearly a weaker choice? Or will they release a 5.5 edition, upgrade all of the simple class options, and include a wider array of more complicated options.
Probably the former. It's not 3.5 where the fighter's so far behind that he can never contribute, but still the fighter has low in combat utility and no out of combat utility - trying to keep a warblade to that level of mediocrity would be stupid, so I fully expect them to outclass the fighter. Paladin (though less clunky and uneven) is the benchmark you're aiming for.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I'm fond of the fighter. It's a focused class that does a few things very well and, due to indomitable, action surge, and second wind, is unlikely to be killed by bad luck.

For non-combat utility, I've come to the conclusion that RP + clever usage of skills is better than having spells but not knowing when or how to use them.

[archaeo]

For non-combat utility, I've come to the conclusion that RP + clever usage of skills is better than having spells but not knowing when or how to use them.

On the one hand, I absolutely agree that roleplaying and good skill usage, as well as a willingness to describe what you're doing with more than "I attack," goes a long way toward making even the Champion Fighter into a fully-featured character option. Only a bad DM is going to make martial options really suck, and those bad DMs are probably going to be making the game un-fun in a variety of other ways anyway.

On the other, inevitable hand, knowing how to use spells is not exactly difficult.

[Aserwen]

I would like to answer from my own experience (I am not an archer, a simple player D&D).
The guy in the video is good, very good, but ignoring that can make very good tricks, not in danger when while shooting targets behind the table. The penalty in D&D refers to when one is threatened.
If that matter, bringing arrows in a quiver on his back, waist, in bow hand or shooting hand not change (at the rules) the shutter speed or force of the arrow. Serves to color the character, even introduce something like the order of the bow as step 3.0.
In summary, in no way affects the rules and how they are implemented.
Now, it is possible that if your Master allows you, can do things like that (which seems very Fighter Style Battle Master. Just tell that aim at hand or weapon of the enemy, and that your intention is to break it, take it away, nailing it to the wall, etc.
Always think that the idea is to balance classes, so there seems to be an archer launcher digeron cantrips as above, but an experienced combat middle and long distance fighter.

[Easy_Lee]

I would like to answer from my own experience (I am not an archer, a simple player D&D).
The guy in the video is good, very good, but ignoring that can make very good tricks, not in danger when while shooting targets behind the table. The penalty in D&D refers to when one is threatened.
If that matter, bringing arrows in a quiver on his back, waist, in bow hand or shooting hand not change (at the rules) the shutter speed or force of the arrow. Serves to color the character, even introduce something like the order of the bow as step 3.0.
In summary, in no way affects the rules and how they are implemented.

If I understand you correctly, let me reply. This is just an ordinary guy demonstrating that a rapid rate of fire is achievable with a bow and arrow. I think we can assume that a maxed D&D fighter will have much more experience, training, and better physical fitness.

Also, D&D bows use only DEX for damage, implying that aim and technique are the only factors affecting damage.

In short, I think firing 4 arrows, or 8 on an action surge, is perfectly reasonable for a maxed D&D fighter.


On the one hand, I absolutely agree that roleplaying and good skill usage, as well as a willingness to describe what you're doing with more than "I attack," goes a long way toward making even the Champion Fighter into a fully-featured character option. Only a bad DM is going to make martial options really suck, and those bad DMs are probably going to be making the game un-fun in a variety of other ways anyway.

On the other, inevitable hand, knowing how to use spells is not exactly difficult.

Good points all, and a very fair criticism of the system. In all fairness, I believe there ought to be more out of combat skill tricks and the like (explicit and published ones). Casting is a big hurdle to overcome.

That said, using spells for story purposes can be difficult. The opportunity cost is hard to justify if you don't know for sure that scrying over that wall / invis-ing into that building will be useful. Skills at least can be used all the time.

Rogues and bards are the undisputed kings of skill usage, and I do feel that other mundanes ought to have some sort of skill boosting, if only for smaller selections of skills. If a player asked, I would definitely consider letting a fighter gain expertise in athletics, irrespective of archetype, or a monk gain expertise in acrobatics or insight perhaps.

But I do believe that, with good role play and creativity, the classes are close enough in both realms for nobody to feel useless or unnecessary. DMing 5e has changed my opinion from what it used to be on this.

[Drake S.]

But I do believe that, with good role play and creativity, the classes are close enough in both realms for nobody to feel useless or unnecessary. DMing 5e has changed my opinion from what it used to be on this.

Yes...THIS. With the proper roleplaying, archery can be very badass as with pretty much any class.

I'm glad this post sparked some interesting debate. Again, I'm new to D&D, but I wanted opinions on what everyone thought based on this vid. I was curious if this changed anyone's view on archery in any way. Whether or not this changes anyone's minds about Archery, a good roleplayer can do wonders with what they've got, whether it is a full blown caster, a strict archer, or a Halfling whatever.

That said, I love halflings now. Just started a seconday Halfling Druid character and it's been fun.

[tieren]

I apologize for the thread necromancy but I am researching archery (as I am an archery focused character).

This discussion seemed to hinge on an issue involving archers having not much to do beside straight damage at range, as compared to say casters.

The problem I have with that is other than perhaps a champion archer (which seems like an odd pick to me) I can't think of a single archer that doesn't have a lot more to choose from, including for the most part casting.

I'm a ranger and ranger's get spells.
Other archers are fighters, rogues, and bards.

Obviously bards have tons of options, including casting.

Rogues have cunning action so can be ducking out to hide after every shot if they want, or can take arcane trickster and get spell options (create illusions to hide behind, enchant a target, etc...)

Fighters can go Battlemaster and actually get the trickshots mentioned above (most manuevers work with archery) or can go eldritch knight to get spell casting, including at some point the ability to cast and shoot in the same turn.

And really if you chose the Champion archer you really must have known what you were getting into and that style must appeal to you.

So what is the issue?

I am personally multiclassing to get some extra casting (Summoning) options, so I can stand in relative safety, concentrating on summons, and shooting arrows into the fray (which should exceed the at will damage of a straight caster trying to do the same thing, while simultaneously fitting my character idea better).

[djreynolds]

I love the champion archer, two fighting styles and 7 feats. You can literally max out dex and get sharpshooter and then grab duel wield style and feat and crit with all of your attacks 15% of the time. And still max out con, and grab resilient wisdom. Grab defensive duelist, shield master. You can literally max out both strength and dex and have feats for archery and strength melee. No one else can do that... and you need no rest ever.

[Mara]

Who said throw out all realism/realistic behavior? I'm saying you can't use it as an excuse to not allow martial to be awesome when you are allowing casters to even exist. And since these tricks are realistic in some way, adding them to a game is not throwing out realistic behaivoir at all. It is setting the bar of realistic behavior at a different level than the real world.

Which is exactly what we do with magic. We set the realism/realistic behavior at a different level and just hand wave it in.

If you keep them the same then all wizards in D&D would be rogues with proficiency and expertise in Sleight of Hand, Deception, and Arcana. The arcana is to make smoke bombs and mirrors.

We don't want that for magic so why would we want that for martial?



The problem is that you never really know what you are going to get. Going into a game as a caster doesn't require special privileged to do X/Y/Z, especially not at sanctioned games. But if you go in wanting to use maneuvers you have to get permission to okay your character.

And that's messed up.

If you want to be a martial who uses skills... You have no clue how hard or easy a basic skill will be. One DM may say that using athletics to open doors that aren't wood is stupid and thus make the DC 50, because of whatever going on in their head. The other DM may realize that this is a fantasy game and set the DC at 10. But because your last DM made it impossible to do so... You don't know you can athletics that metal door off its hinges.

Meanwhile casters know exactly what they can or can't do. It says so in the spell. You can go from table to table and they will always do the same thing (unless a soell is banned). And the spell DCs math is in favor of the caster already...

One part of the game has rules and the other part of the game is playing Calvin Ball.

Edit: And once a DM allows one player to do something special then others will ask for something special... Which can lead to lots of crap. I've met quite a few DMs who hate that slippery slope and won't even get started with it.

Edit: And is this is a realistic behavior then what should a fantasy game set it to?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

Just want to say. Not knowing what you get is also a good way not to have theorycraft all scenarios before you get to the game. I run into that problem a lot in games like PF and I expect 5e casters to fall into that niche too if the DM doesn't do custom spells and rituals. In 5e, I can run the same build 3 times and get characters that do different things.

[MaxWilson]

Melee and archery get the short end of the stick compared to casting, not archery gets the short end of the stick compared to the other two. In general, archery is just pure damage, which is very boring - at least with melee you can trip, shove etc. Unless you're a battlemaster, archery is functionally identical to using one cantrip over and over for the entire game in how it is played.

DMG page 271 allows you to Disarm using any weapon attack, not just a melee attack. Opposed roll, attack roll vs. Str (Athletics), advantage/disadvantage for size-related conditions or two-handed grip.

[PoeticDwarf]

Melee and archery get the short end of the stick compared to casting, not archery gets the short end of the stick compared to the other two. In general, archery is just pure damage, which is very boring - at least with melee you can trip, shove etc. Unless you're a battlemaster, archery is functionally identical to using one cantrip over and over for the entire game in how it is played.

Most melee characters are as boring as archers. I mean, how many times you see a figther/paladin/barbarian (no grappler) with good damage who sometimes shoves and does things like that, never.

[Hawkstar]

In real life? Yeah that guy is a master at what he does. In D&D he should be level 1 and let's build everything from there.
... No. D&D doesn't work like that. Especially not these later editions. "Real-life people are level 0 nobodies" is a concept that really, really needs to die.

[tieren]

Is archery enough?

I'm doing real well damage wise as an archer at lower levels. Between colossus slayer, hunters mark and archery style (which is effectively +4 dex) I'm ahead of the melee and the caster at will damage.

Looking ahead in my build, I'll get extra attack, and then sneak attack with the rogue MC, then perhaps another boost when I get haste from land circle druid MC. But it looks like I'm heading for a point that the only real progress I can make on increasing archery is more sneak attack damage, which will only be on one shot per round.