It seems the few disadvantages that archers have just seem to keep falling away. Things like Snap Shot and Clustered Shots are obvious power creep as no archer in their right mind would pass them up.
Well, it's a new day and we have new features thanks to Ultimate Equipment. It used to be that every time you increased your strength score, you had to either suck up not having enough composite strength bonus in your bow to fully utilize your damage potential, or else pay out your wazoo to replace your bow with an entirely new one (which can get real costly when you're higher level and frequently exchanging +5 bows).
But now Ultimate Equipment gives us the adaptive weapon quality, a 1,000gp magical weapon property that can be placed on composite bows, which allows the wielder to pick the bow's strength rating.
Nifty huh?
I have several characters that I am adapting that are only paying a 100-300gp for this enchantment since they are giving up their +7 to +9 strength bonus (at 100gp per +1 bonus). What archer wouldn't go for this!?
Ammo isn't even a concern anymore thanks to the conservative and endless ammunition weapon properties.
Do you think archers are getting too much support (compared to other classes)? Or do you see this more as a much needed "fix?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the question even necessary? lol
Where's the dueling (1h + empty offhand) love, Paizo?!
The only "fix" that archers need is a toning down to be less omgwtfawesome. I don't think this is so bad since +7 to +9 strength on an archer is kind of ...wtf. But it'll allow them to focus more on the strength, that's for sure.
3.5 archers were so underpowered that I think some overpoweredness is in order for them :)
It's also a great ability for magi, eldritch knights, and arcane archers who might make frequent use of enlarge person or various polymorph effects.
Archers are great.... Until someone uses a 5th level spell "Fickle Winds" to completely shut them down.
Just you wait. It's only a matter of time before even that's no longer an issue.
EDIT: I just came across another crazy archer ability in UE called Second Chance, which can only apply to bows (for some unknown reason). It lets you re-roll a missed attack roll ONCE PER ROUND. What's that going to do the DPR I wonder?
EDIT: I just came across another crazy archer ability in UE called Second Chance, which can only apply to bows (for some unknown reason). It lets you re-roll a missed attack roll ONCE PER ROUND. What's that going to do the DPR I wonder?
If it's a +1 ability, then that sounds perilously close to being a must-have.
It's a +4 and uses the bonus of the shot that missed.
I'd still say it's a must have at high levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only one attack per round? For an archer? At the cost of a +4? Nah, I'll just hit you with my other 42994371 attacks and eat that one miss.
:D
Design Manager
|
Second Chance is essentially just the Luck Blade ability for bows, it's not really anything "new" to the system. Most archers have already piled on enough attacks that the only reason I could see for it would be to make sure that Manyshot hits when it really, really counts.
So, the Adaptive quality allows you to pick the bow's strength rating whenever you attack with it? Is that correct?
It allows archers to benefit from effects that boost STR (like Bull's Strength) which is nice, but you generally only have so many resources you can commit to stats, and you still need DEX to hit, right? So you're probably looking at being able to benefit from a buff that will give you an extra +2 to damage per hit, while it's giving the melee character a boost to hit and damage (plus half again as much damage if it's a THF). I don't think it's all that terrible. Most archers don't really have too many ways to actually boost their damage above their (admittedly high) baseline in combat, other than effects like Haste that give them an extra attack.
Ah, the old "Something is powerful, that means everything else should be powerful!" argument. Gotta love the never ending power creep that's disguised as "X getting deserved nice things". Or power all-out-sprint as it is in some cases.
Archers are great.... Until someone uses a 5th level spell "Fickle Winds" to completely shut them down.
the archer bard has shot your 9th level to pieces before he begins the first word of the spell!!!
archers:
nearly always get full attack
nearly always have the right thing to bypass DR
nearly always have 1-2 more arrows released on their FA than melee
have their attack stat as their intiative stat
they where a poor option in 3.5, and the balance has gone way to far the other way
if UE has slashing arrows then they are complete
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We still need a +3/-1 damage feat, 1.5xStr composite bows, the ability to get ranged flanking bonuses, a weapon with more than 1d8 damage, and the ability to use one stat for hit and damage. Then we'll be good.
We still need a +3/-1 damage feat, 1.5xStr composite bows, the ability to get ranged flanking bonuses, a weapon with more than 1d8 damage, and the ability to use one stat for hit and damage. Then we'll be good.
This is my favorite answer.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so let me be sure I understand this. A melee fighter automatically gets whatever strength bonus they may have at that instant applied to any attack they make with a melee weapon. Plus they get to add that bonus to their damage roll as well. And strength is their primary stat so is going to be their highest bonus. ALSO if they use two hands, they get another 50% of that bonus to their damage.
With any weapon.
With a rock they pick up from the dirt.
This new ability for archers allows them to add their strength bonus (and ONLY their strength bonus, never 1.5x their strength bonus) to their damage. At a cost of a 1,000 gp magical weapon. So they can use at best a secondary attribute bonus on their damage ONLY.
Wow. Sounds ridiculously overpowered to me. What the hell is Paizo thinking?
Of course the reason archers are "overpowered" has nothing to do with using strength rated bows (heck, my druid has a 10 strength, so this wouldn't even help her unless she were magically buffed somehow). They are "overpowered" because they can full attack at range or from the back of a moving mount.
That's all. And there are plenty of ways to defend against those incoming arrows.
Sorry, not getting the outrage here.
|
Design Manager
|
archers:
nearly always get full attack
nearly always have the right thing to bypass DR
nearly always have 1-2 more arrows released on their FA than melee
have their attack stat as their intiative statthey where a poor option in 3.5, and the balance has gone way to far the other way
if UE has slashing arrows then they are complete
Archers also:
Do substantially less damage per hit
Have to pay per shot when using DR bypassing arrows (or per 20 or 50 shots, depending)
Have one primary stat to hit and a separate stat for damage, which they have to pay to utilize (unless you're a Zen Archer)
In many situations where the archer can full attack the cavalier, barbarian, and others will probably have options for moving and full attacking as well. Even at low levels, a single attack from a THF or Lance-wielding cavalier will be equal to 3 or 4 hits from an archer.
Archers are largely on par with any other non-casting class when push comes to shove. They're at least as (for a good one I would say more than) feat intensive as a TWF, with fewer options for dealing with melee until mid-high levels. They're good, but not inherently better.
I don't think Ssalarn has played with an archer in a while.
archers:
nearly always get full attack
nearly always have the right thing to bypass DR
nearly always have 1-2 more arrows released on their FA than melee
have their attack stat as their intiative statthey where a poor option in 3.5, and the balance has gone way to far the other way
if UE has slashing arrows then they are complete
two handed weapon barbs:
nearly always get full attack (after gaining pounce)
nearly always give two hoots about DR
nearly always deal 1-2 times the damage of an arrow with each hit
have their to hit stat as their to damage stat
they where a poor option in 3.5, and the balance has gone way to far the other way
--------------------------------------------------------------------
See I can do list too. There are negatives and positives with being an archer. 2h Fighters and Barbarians aren't exactly hurting. I have yet to see a ton of DM's staying "How do I deal with this OP'd Archer!"... a few but not nearly the number compared to say Summoners or Alchemist/Gunslinger threads.
This enchant fills a need for archers. Every other class I can think of that uses melee primarly gains some benefit from an increase in Str. Archers are one of the few who dont. This simply allows archers to get something out of a bulls strength... at a price. Working as intended. Its fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all barbs get pounce. In fact, most don't and it should never be assumed for comparing the baseline of fighting styles.
|
Design Manager
|
I don't think Ssalarn has played with an archer in a while.
Running a Sohei archer right now :)
I made the melee guys feel bad for like 2 levels, then the Barbarian got pounce and that went away. Plus, they never worry about cover, terrain, fighting in dungeons with lots of sharp corners and S turns that limit my range, things like that.On a nice flat, open field, I'll ride circles around the barbarian turning enemies into pin-cushions all day long. In a forest full of trees, a dungeon full of narrow hallways, or pretty much anywhere other than the aforementioned field, things are even at best, skewed back in favor of the melee guys more often.
And even with Deadly Aim and a composite Bow, It still takes about 2.5 of my attacks to equal one of the Barbarian's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all barbs get pounce. In fact, most don't and it should never be assumed for comparing the baseline of fighting styles.
Your missing my point Cheapy. Other classes can be displayed in a negative light that doesn't account for any of the problems that class has.
Archers have issues that other melee dont.
Archers have bonuses that other melee dont.
Large amount of attacks vs hard hitting attacks.
Full Attack at range vs Provoking AoO in melee.
To hit stat same as Init stat vs To hit/To Damage stat being the same.
I could go on and on.
There are plenty of tactics a DM can use to hinder an Archer just like there are things to hinder Smiting Paladins, Eiodolon using Summoners, Touch attack Gunslingers, and any other "broken" class you can think of.
Concealment
DR
Spells (Fog clouds, Fickle Winds, Wall spells, Pit Spells, ect)
Grapple
Trip
Terrain
Do I need to keep going? Archers are not hard to deal with and do no more damage then plenty of other melee types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And simply listing off disadvantages does nothing without considering the magnitude of those. Those lists of archer weaknesses rarely take into account frequency of the things coming up. The only thing that comes up with frequency in the average game is DR. The only common balancing factor with archers is mostly overcome by cheap arrows and enhancement bonuses. And even if they don't have such arrows, deadly aim really helps with that. What happens when mr. greatsword (and it is hilarious that it's always a greatsword) encounters material or damage type DR that he can't overcome? Well, he powers through it. Mr. Archer? He just uses the right arrow. Most encounters don't take place in twisty turny tunnels or forests or areas that are disadvantaged to archers. A GM using those spells listed is a one-time thing. It's not something they can keep on doing every combat without being a massive dick. Plus, only one of those actually only hurts archers and not other martials.
Making a marginalizing archer is so easy. You just take the obvious feats. Nothing inventive about it. It can be done with any class. You don't need to use any specific class features (funny how barbarians pouncing is always brought up with why archery isn't overpowered!) to be amazing. You just take the most obvious feats.
And every single one of these feats is in the core rulebook. No need to span multiple books looking for some combo of class levels, feats, and abilities to make archery amazingly effective. No need to rely on one single ability to level the playing field, an ability that the average players of the game have probably never used.
I'm honestly amazed that people are starting to defend archery as balanced and "on par with other styles". Show me some builds that don't rely on class features or two-handers that can do as well as archery does. If you can do it with just the core rules, even better.
|
Design Manager
|
And simply listing off disadvantages does nothing without considering the magnitude of those. Those lists of archer weaknesses rarely take into account frequency of the things coming up. The only thing that comes up with frequency in the average game is DR. The only common balancing factor with archers is mostly overcome by cheap arrows and enhancement bonuses. And even if they don't have such arrows, deadly aim really helps with that. What happens when mr. greatsword (and it is hilarious that it's always a greatsword) encounters material or damage type DR that he can't overcome? Well, he powers through it. Mr. Archer? He just uses the right arrow. Most encounters don't take place in twisty turny tunnels or forests or areas that are disadvantaged to archers. A GM using those spells listed is a one-time thing. It's not something they can keep on doing every combat without being a massive dick. Plus, only one of those actually only hurts archers and not other martials.
Making a marginalizing archer is so easy. You just take the obvious feats. Nothing inventive about it. It can be done with any class. You don't need to use any specific class features (funny how barbarians pouncing is always brought up with why archery isn't overpowered!) to be amazing. You just take the most obvious feats.
And every single one of these feats is in the core rulebook. No need to span multiple books looking for some combo of class levels, feats, and abilities to make archery amazingly effective. No need to rely on one single ability to level the playing field, an ability that the average players of the game have probably never used.
I'm honestly amazed that people are starting to defend archery as balanced and "on par with other styles". Show me some builds that don't rely on class features or two-handers that can do as well as archery does. If you can do it with just the core rules, even better.
So the real request here is "Show me a Sword-and-Board or Two-Weapon Fighter who does as well as an archer build in combat?" They don't. Two-Weapon Fighting is sadly under-powered, especially if you're focusing only on the CRB since the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype from the APG comes closest to correcting these issues. A Sword and Board is either defense focused and not competing as a damage dealer, or bumps into the same issues as the TWF(i.e. limited attack/movement options). So many people compare the THF and archery builds, because those are the builds that are expected to do damage. Archery does it by pumping out twice as many attacks, THF does it by cranking out twice as much damage per hit. Mounted Combat builds are equally capable of dishing out huge damage (hello lance while attacking from a charging mount), but people don't reference them as often because a) everyone immediately counters with the "but you can't bring your horse everywhere" argument, even though most situations that preclude a mount also mean the archer is taking at least soft cover negatives to hit, and b) the answer to having a mount you can take everywhere is to play a halfling mounted warrior, and no one wants to be the first guy to make that suggestion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
archers:
nearly always get full attack
nearly always have the right thing to bypass DR
nearly always have 1-2 more arrows released on their FA than melee
have their attack stat as their intiative statthey where a poor option in 3.5, and the balance has gone way to far the other way
if UE has slashing arrows then they are complete
oh yeah and lets not forget...
*having to have line of sight.
*having -4 to attack every time a damn idiot teammate steps in front of them until they can afford the manditory weapon enchant of seeking., or improved precise.
*falling prone and not being able to fight until they are able to stand up.
* having anti arrow feats(snatch, deflect), dr 3- arrow armor that can be placed under normal armor.
*having a set ammount of ammunition.
i mean yeah they hit hard, but they are so easy to shut down. if they didnt have the DPR they would never be played.
The only thing that comes up with frequency in the average game is DR. The only common balancing factor with archers is mostly overcome by cheap arrows and enhancement bonuses. And even if they don't have such arrows, deadly aim really helps with that. What happens when mr. greatsword (and it is hilarious that it's always a greatsword) encounters material or damage type DR that he can't overcome? Well, he powers through it. Mr. Archer? He just uses the right arrow. Most encounters don't take place in twisty turny tunnels or forests or areas that are disadvantaged to archers.
Weren't you the one arguing that clustered shots was too powerful and that DR wasn't as easy to get through as choosing the right arrow? I think you mentioned combination DRs?
Furthermore, do you really have lots of encounters where archers get to use their full range increment and cover isn't readily available? I would estimate that I spend 20-40% of my turns repositioning, meaning I get one attack, and my GM isn't even specifically trying. It's just that archery doesn't lend itself to being indoors. Actually, if anything, he's metagaming it in favor of archery. If enemies ever closed the gap, they'd get the greatsword power attack of doom.
Making a marginalizing archer is so easy. You just take the obvious feats. Nothing inventive about it. It can be done with any class. You don't need to use any specific class features (funny how barbarians pouncing is always brought up with why archery isn't overpowered!) to be amazing. You just take the most obvious feats.
And melee combat requires you to be inventive to be good? The only real difference is that melee combat has a variety of ways to be good (or bad). Archery has just the one path really.
I'm honestly amazed that people are starting to defend archery as balanced and "on par with other styles". Show me some builds that don't rely on class features or two-handers that can do as well as archery does. If you can do it with just the core rules, even better.
So you're limiting it to two weapon fighting or sword and board? I could probably work with that, but I don't have the time right now.
cant believe i forgot can double move on a horse and get FA
I can only post from experience and at the level 15 we are now the archers paste everything, before the melee dude, (with a ring of freedom of movement and useful boots.....)
and any obstacle or flight also act against melee
My responses in bold...
oh yeah and lets not forget...*having to have line of sight.
^ Misleading; pretty much everyone needs line of sight, including melee monsters*having -4 to attack every time a damn idiot teammate steps in front of them until they can afford the manditory weapon enchant of seeking., or improved precise.
^ Easily fixed with any number of items/feats; dedicated archers will never have this concern*falling prone and not being able to fight until they are able to stand up.
^ Probably your only valid point* having anti arrow feats(snatch, deflect), dr 3- arrow armor that can be placed under normal armor.
^ Having 6+ attacks per round and clustered shots makes this a non-issue*having a set ammount of ammunition.
^ Unless you are using durable arrows or have the Endless Ammunition enchantmenti mean yeah they hit hard, but they are so easy to shut down. if they didnt have the DPR they would never be played.
^ Only two wind spells shut them down effectively, compared to the 50+ spells that shut down melee characters effectively
Most of your points are a non-issue for a dedicated archer over 5th-level. Of those that are left, all but one also effects melee characters as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are fighting outdoors, the supposed archer advantage in range is virtually impossible to get. The average room size for a major battle is usually small enough for melee characters to cover in one round, usually with just a charge, not even requiring two move actions to cross.
I've read through this and half a dozen other "OMG! Archers are teh overpower'd!" threads and the single most striking thing about the threads is that the people complaining about archers are ALWAYS complaining about archer PCs, not archer NPCs.
In other words, the problem being expressed is not "Archers are kicking our butts!" The problem being expressed is "Wah! I wanna do as much damage as the archer in our party."
Which begs the question. "If archers truly are so awesome, why don't more GMs use them against PC parties?"
Well, I'm a GM. But I use archers against the party. And you know what? They suck. If the party isn't in melee, they duck and cover, either removing my ability to hit them at all, or giving me a -4 to my attacks. If they are in melee then I get -4 to my attacks, sometimes -8. At that point I either roll a 20 or I miss. And all it takes to wipe out my whole battalion of archers is for some melee member of the party to get up close and personal.
So waitaminute, how can archers be so awesome and yet suck so totally?
Because it's not "archers" that are so awesome. What is awesome is a very specific set of feats, class abilities and magic items all focused on the single goal of making bows and arrows not suck.
Feats, class abilities and magic items that just happen to tend to make the archer character a sitting duck should he happen to be forced into melee.
And after all of that investment and willingness to risk melee humiliation, the archer's single "advantage" can be virtually entirely nullified in half a dozen obvious ways.
Archery is a high-risk, high-reward character choice. You give up a ton to gain what advantage you do get.
And frankly you don't get much, if any, advantage when compared to equally well built melee characters who utilize effective melee tactics.
I have to admit that sometimes when I hear "Wah! The archer character is getting all the damage!" I can't help but hear a tiny voice calling out and saying "Help, we don't know how to use tactics to maximize our melee abilities!"
|
Design Manager
|
Unless you are fighting outdoors, the supposed archer advantage in range is virtually impossible to get. The average room size for a major battle is usually small enough for melee characters to cover in one round, usually with just a charge, not even requiring two move actions to cross.
I've read through this and half a dozen other "OMG! Archers are teh overpower'd!" threads and the single most striking thing about the threads is that the people complaining about archers are ALWAYS complaining about archer PCs, not archer NPCs.
In other words, the problem being expressed is not "Archer's are kicking our butts!" The problem being expressed is "Wah! I wanna do as much damage as the archer in our party."
Which begs the question. "If archers truly are so awesome, why don't more GMs use them against PC parties?"
Well, I'm a GM. But I use archers against the party. And you know what? They suck. If the party isn't in melee, they duck and cover, either removing my ability to hit them at all, or giving me a -4 to my attacks. If they are in melee then I get -4 to my attacks, sometimes -8. At that point I either roll a 20 or I miss. And all it takes to wipe out my whole battalion of archers is for some melee member of the party to get up close and personal.
So waitaminute, how can archers be so awesome and yet suck so totally?
Because it's not "archers" that are so awesome. What is awesome is a very specific set of feats, class abilities and magic items all focused on the single goal of making bows and arrows not suck.
Feats, class abilities and magic items that just happen to tend to make the archer character a sitting duck should he happen to be forced into melee.
And after all of that investment and willingness to risk melee humiliation, the archer's single "advantage" can be virtually entirely nullified in half a dozen obvious ways.
Archery is a high-risk, high-reward character choice. You give up a ton to gain what advantage you do get.
And frankly you don't get much, if any, advantage...
^^ This.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know you all love the game, and that's why you all have these optimization discussions but...isn't this argument more suited to Warhammer, where everything that is in the books is canon, and everything not in the books doesn't exist?
Seriously, the Ultimate Equipment guide comes out, and everyone pores over it to see "who" got "what", and in this thread, it's about Archers getting an Adaptive Weapon quality...?
1. Who says anyone "gets" anything? Aren't the books just imaginings from Paizo, listing suggestions for GM's and players?
2. What's stopping anyone from having anything except a consensus between GM and players?
This ties back to the whole "Magic Shop" argument that's been discussed in other threads; because something is in print, is the player entitled to it as soon as they have the Feat slot/Coin to afford it?
I think there are two games being played here: One is The Metagame, which is what everyone uses to learn the "best of the best" characters, and The Adventure, which is what the books are for...it's what happens at the table.
Or maybe I've got it wrong, and the books are for The Metagame, and the dice are for The Adventure.
I know you all love the game, and that's why you all have these optimization discussions but...isn't this argument more suited to Warhammer, where everything that is in the books is canon, and everything not in the books doesn't exist?
Seriously, the Ultimate Equipment guide comes out, and everyone pores over it to see "who" got "what", and in this thread, it's about Archers getting an Adaptive Weapon quality...?
1. Who says anyone "gets" anything? Aren't the books just imaginings from Paizo, listing suggestions for GM's and players?
2. What's stopping anyone from having anything except a consensus between GM and players?
This ties back to the whole "Magic Shop" argument that's been discussed in other threads; because something is in print, is the player entitled to it as soon as they have the Feat slot/Coin to afford it?
I think there are two games being played here: One is The Metagame, which is what everyone uses to learn the "best of the best" characters, and The Adventure, which is what the books are for...it's what happens at the table.
Or maybe I've got it wrong, and the books are for The Metagame, and the dice are for The Adventure.
I understand what you are saying, but for better or worse, the rules provide the structure for playing the game. Sure any GM at any time can modify a rule, restrict a rule or introduce their own rule.
But so long as the game is intended to be playable by the same characters at different tables with different GMs, the books and what is published in them have meaning in terms of what the players can expect. Especially since content published as a game aid for GMs and players assumes the rules are being implemented as written, and balanced against them.
|
Design Manager
|
You also run into issues in groups where the same party is carried over into adventures between multiple GM's. I haven't been in a group like this in a while, but back when I was in the Army it was fairly normal, and you'd inevitably see items that one GM hated but another GM had no problem with worming their way into people's inventories.
Players also don't always take it well when you tell them they can't use their crafting feats to make items they meet all the prereqs for.
I control that a little in my home games by introducing "Crafting Recipes". You get to pick 5 items related to the crafting feat you've taken, and I mix in additional recipes as loot outside the normal WBL when I've got a crafter in the party. I also let them research new crafting recipes during down time. It helps balance things a little, and gives me some control over what items and enchantments do or not enter the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a sensible and mature response. Thank you, AD.
Yes, I think these things need to be discussed and pored-over and reasoned. The forums are a kind of game-testing, after all. Everyone wants to explore the limits of things, and that's important.
BUT...I stand by my theory that there is two games being played, and I hate to see The Adventure become subsumed by The Metagame. It destroys the sense of wonder and accomplishment when someone brings lists and expectations and a sense of entitlement to the table.
|
Design Manager
|
That's a sensible and mature response. Thank you, AD.
Yes, I think these things need to be discussed and pored-over and reasoned. The forums are a kind of game-testing, after all. Everyone wants to explore the limits of things, and that's important.
BUT...I stand by my theory that there is two games being played, and I hate to see The Adventure become subsumed by The Metagame. It destroys the sense of wonder and accomplishment when someone brings lists and expectations and a sense of entitlement to the table.
Absolutely agreed Owly.
I also kind of suspect that many of the "issues" that crop up in these boards are entirely theoretical, as opposed to issues which are actively impacting someone's current game.What something looks like on paper and how it performs over the course of a campaign are often two entirely different things.
Unless you are fighting outdoors, the supposed archer advantage in range is virtually impossible to get. The average room size for a major battle is usually small enough for melee characters to cover in one round, usually with just a charge, not even requiring two move actions to cross.
^ Worst case scenario, a dedicated archer is reduced to being as bad as a dedicated meleeist--except he can do more damage.
I've read through this and half a dozen other "OMG! Archers are teh overpower'd!" threads and the single most striking thing about the threads is that the people complaining about archers are ALWAYS complaining about archer PCs, not archer NPCs.
^ I've observed this as well.
In other words, the problem being expressed is not "Archers are kicking our butts!" The problem being expressed is "Wah! I wanna do as much damage as the archer in our party."
^ Why can't people just be happy with their chosen niche?
Which begs the question. "If archers truly are so awesome, why don't more GMs use them against PC parties?"
^ Many of them do. Our party has been put through hell time and again thanks to archer NPCs.
Well, I'm a GM. But I use archers against the party. And you know what? They suck. If the party isn't in melee, they duck and cover, either removing my ability to hit them at all, or giving me a -4 to my attacks. If they are in melee then I get -4 to my attacks, sometimes -8. At that point I either roll a 20 or I miss. And all it takes to wipe out my whole battalion of archers is for some melee member of the party to get up close and personal.
^ This is only a problem for an archer, as opposed to a dedicated archer
So waitaminute, how can archers be so awesome and yet suck so totally?
Because it's not "archers" that are so awesome. What is awesome is a very specific set of feats, class abilities and magic items all focused on the single goal of making bows and arrows not suck.
^ Your one valid point in the whole post. Took you a while to work up to it.
Feats, class abilities and magic items that just happen to tend to make the archer character a sitting duck should he happen to be forced into melee.
^ He's allowed to be a sitting duck. Many things die before they can close the gap. Most everything dies long before they can stop the dedicated archer. What's more, his AC will be on par with that of a dedicated tank's. The problem isn't their DPR, it's the toes they're stepping on.
And after all of that investment and willingness to risk melee humiliation, the archer's single "advantage" can be virtually entirely nullified in half a dozen obvious ways.
^ Melee humiliation for the meleeist you mean.
Archery is a high-risk, high-reward character choice. You give up a ton to gain what advantage you do get.
^ It is very focused, true, but against everything else (short of certain spellcasters) it wins out.
And frankly you don't get much, if any, advantage...
^ Everything else dies. You don't. Is that not enough of an advantage?
|
Design Manager
|
"Unless you are fighting outdoors, the supposed archer advantage in range is virtually impossible to get. The average room size for a major battle is usually small enough for melee characters to cover in one round, usually with just a charge, not even requiring two move actions to cross.
^ Worst case scenario, a dedicated archer is reduced to being as bad as a dedicated meleeist--except he can do more damage."
I disagree with this, since many THF will be doing 2x or more damage per hit than the archer.
I do, however, totally agree with this:
"I've read through this and half a dozen other "OMG! Archers are teh overpower'd!" threads and the single most striking thing about the threads is that the people complaining about archers are ALWAYS complaining about archer PCs, not archer NPCs.
^ I've observed this as well."
make melee better, not archers weaker?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
make melee better, not archers weaker?
Quit demanding a completely unachievable and almost certainly unwise course of catering to the whining of certain stat-obsessed players that every class be equal to every other class or it's "OMG totally unfair WTF!?!"
Something like this kinda scares me:
Human Fighter 6
STR 14
DEX 19
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 8
1. Rapid Shot
1. Point Blank Shot
2. Weapon Focus (longbow)
3. Dodge
4. Mobility
5. Combat Patrol
6. Snapshot
At level 10, reach increases to 15 feat, allowing 5 AOO's per turn.
PLEASE correct me!!!
|
The PFS Human archer build I played with recently was pretty insane.
I think he had 5 or 6 attacks (rapid shot/many shot included) and each one hit for +20 per hit based off his high STR and other affects.
That was something like 6d8 + 120ish or so, at 9th lvl.
He pretty much one shotted everything we ran across.
Even my combat oriented bi-ped Summoner/tentacle thing barely kept up.
He outdamaged the Barbarian by a staggering amount.
He outdamaged the Musket Master/Ranger by a ridiculous amount.
It pretty much made the scenarios insta-win.
Archers need more "good stuff" pretty much not at all anymore.
Two-Weapon Fighting is sadly under-powered, especially if you're focusing only on the CRB since the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype from the APG comes closest to correcting these issues.