At low level an archery ranger can stand against other classes, and is fun to play, but when level increases, archery ranger became incredibly weak, compared to all meele fighters ... his damage remains more or less the same he did at first/second level, while meele fighters can easily go for enormous amount of damage ... TWF has feats decreasing penalities for the many attack he gets, and increasing damage, other fighters can do devastating blows, for hundreds of damage, archer can edventualy get a few precision feats more, but his damage remains the same, not even usable against any creature with damage reduction ( at highter level is a rule), and many archery feats became unusefull .. yes, he can gain a little more precision, but that is all ... mostly archery feats are incredibly low for middle or high level classes ...
I beleive a few better archery based feats are required...
I shoud say a few, not unbalancig, shoud be something like these ( forgive my very poor english) ..
[b]Improved Rapid Shot [\b}
Preq. Rapid Shot, Dex 15
Bonus: You can make an additional ranged attack.
Without improved rapid shot all of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty
[b]Weapon Specialization (Archery weapon)[\b]
A ranger who has taken the Archery path becames so skilled in his weapon, he can get Weapon Specialization in his favorite Archery weapon as one of his bonus feats after 6 level.
Preq.
Dex 15
Weapon Focus in the selected weapon
At least 3 more archery related feats
Bonus: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you
make using the selected weapon
|
At low level an archery ranger can stand against other classes, and is fun to play, but when level increases, archery ranger became incredibly weak, compared to all meele fighters ... his damage remains more or less the same he did at first/second level, while meele fighters can easily go for enormous amount of damage ... TWF has feats decreasing penalities for the many attack he gets, and increasing damage, other fighters can do devastating blows, for hundreds of damage, archer can edventualy get a few precision feats more, but his damage remains the same, not even usable against any creature with damage reduction ( at highter level is a rule), and many archery feats became unusefull .. yes, he can gain a little more precision, but that is all ... mostly archery feats are incredibly low for middle or high level classes ...
We did an 8th level playtest, and the elven ranger did significant amounts of damage, thanks to the Deadly Aim feat, which he used most of the time, granting his multiple attacks another 5 points of damage each. With his mighty composite shocking bow, and rapid shot he was handing out 1d8+1d6+8 points of damage three times a round.
Extending a feat chain is a poor solution in my opinion. It just drives these poor characters further into dead-end specialization, with diminishing returns.
The best course is to make the original feats perform well at around the levels where they become available.
I honestly don't see a problem with the current system.
From a mechanical standpoint, doing less damage is the trade-off for not being in as much danger as melee characters. If we start to sync all damage, they may as well not be different fighting styles.
From a realism standpoint (and history/weaponry buffs, feel free to correct me) isn't being hit by a sharp sword generally deadlier than being struck by an arrow?
From a realism standpoint (and history/weaponry buffs, feel free to correct me) isn't being hit by a sharp sword generally deadlier than being struck by an arrow?
Ouch - wrong example. Ask the French knights about how deadly the English longbows were in the Hundred Year's War...
Bows in general were quite impressive and effective. If you need earlier examples, just think about the Huns - they won nearly every battle with their bows and fast horses (they were the first ones who learned to shoot while riding with nearly full speed - which was devastating for their enemies).
If you (as someone who commands a few archers) had a position which couldn't be reached very, very fast by the other side (e.g. some higher rocks or on the other side of a deeper river or because there is a small force of footmen in front of you), longbows are a very deadly and precise weapon. And remember that without a plate armor (if you were wearing chain shirt, banded mail, whatever), you're simply dead meat against a good archer - he will kill you before you're even close enough to use your sword (and if you think you can "wipe" or "snatch" away the arrow like the Kung-Fu masters in some movies - I recommend watching the corresponding Mythbusters episode... ;-)
Cheers,
Igor[Rock]
(If you don't know French and English history to well: the English long-bow archers were the main cause for the knights to disappear altogether. The "Battle of Crécy" was a complete disaster for the heavy-armoured french knights, it is generally seen as the end of chivalry...
If you want to know more about this, have a look at the corresponding
Wikipedia entry about this battle.)
From a realism standpoint (and history/weaponry buffs, feel free to correct me) isn't being hit by a sharp sword generally deadlier than being struck by an arrow?Ouch - wrong example. Ask the French knights about how deadly the English longbows were in the Hundred Year's War...
Bows in general were quite impressive and effective. If you need earlier examples, just think about the Huns - they won nearly every battle with their bows and fast horses (they were the first ones who learned to shoot while riding with nearly full speed - which was devastating for their enemies).
If you (as someone who commands a few archers) had a position which couldn't be reached very, very fast by the other side (e.g. some higher rocks or on the other side of a deeper river or because there is a small force of footmen in front of you), longbows are a very deadly and precise weapon. And remember that without a plate armor (if you were wearing chain shirt, banded mail, whatever), you're simply dead meat against a good archer - he will kill you before you're even close enough to use your sword (and if you think you can "wipe" or "snatch" away the arrow like the Kung-Fu masters in some movies - I recommend watching the corresponding Mythbusters episode... ;-)
Cheers,'
Igor[Rock]
(If you don't know French and English history to well: the English long-bow archers were the main cause for the knights to disappear altogether. The "Battle of Crécy" was a complete disaster for the heavy-armoured french knights, it is generally seen as the end of chivalry...
If you want to know more about this, have a look at the corresponding
Wikipedia entry about this battle.)
Yeah, I wasn't really sure. That was just kinda my guess.
But (and I'm really asking and not being facetious), were they deadlier by dint of being a ranged weapon, or by dint of an arrow being capable of causing more harm to the human body than, say, a sword? I mean, if you had to choose being swung at by a greatsword or shot by an arrow, which is worse (assuming said attack actually hits)?
Something to keep in mind regarding historical military uses of archery is that you had entire companies of archers loosing volleys. This means that if you were in the targeted area, you WOULD be hit. In this sense then, archery was not so much the marksmanship style we are talking about with Robin Hood, but more like cluster bombing.
As for getting hit with a sword, vs. an arrow? A penetrating attack that strikes a vital area has a much higher chance of putting organs out of commission. The trade-off is that if you don't hit a vital area, it's probably not immediately fatal. Upping the ante for the arrow is the fact that a wooden shaft can splinter on impact and whip around in the wound inflicting further damage. Having fletching go tearing thru you can't feel too good either.
I wonder if the MythBuster guys have some way of comparing damage levels with each... That ballistic jelly they use appears to be some sort of an ooze though, so it might not be a fair comparison since they'd have to ignore crits. ;)
Interesting. My knowledge of archery comes from LOTR, a shadier high-school friend, and video games, so I figured I was just talking out of my ass.
I guess my question is: what does that translate to in the game? and is the benefit of attacking from 100 feat away worth less damage?
This doesn't necessarily just apply to D&D, but a design guideline that is often used in video game level design, or any type of competition is the the notion of Risk vs. Reward. i.e. If something is riskier, the reward should be greater.
From that standpoint, if we look at the issue from a purely gamist perspective, then the decreased risk of being at-range would diminish the damage reward. (Not that I'm saying this has any bearing on RealLife™ ballistics, mind you. ;)
Slings were nearly as deadly as bows. They were slower, but a skilled slinger could shater a person's ribs or skull with a single shot.
Historically, most armor was designed to primarily stop melee attacks. It became the shield's job to block missile fire. Of course, you cannot easily model this in D&D.
As for getting hit with a sword, vs. an arrow? A penetrating attack that strikes a vital area has a much higher chance of putting organs out of commission. The trade-off is that if you don't hit a vital area, it's probably not immediately fatal.
Yes. Deep puncture wounds are almost always more life-threatening than deep slashes (unless an artery is cut). That's difficult to model with the current hit/damage system, though, unless you gave maces like 4d6 base damage and no crits, and swords 3d6/20/x2, and bows 1d6/18-20/x8 or something.
The current system isn't "realistic," but it seems to work OK, so I'm quite hesitant to mess with it too much.
Yes. Deep puncture wounds are almost always more life-threatening than deep slashes (unless an artery is cut). That's difficult to model with the current hit/damage system, though, unless you gave maces like 4d6 base damage and no crits, and swords 3d6/20/x2, and bows 1d6/18-20/x8 or something.
The current system isn't "realistic," but it seems to work OK, so I'm quite hesitant to mess with it too much.
Right, and then arrows would have a major bonus to hit, but be a full round action to fire and blah blah blah. I always just figured swords were deadlier for some reason (ermm...maybe I'm hung up on size...wah wah wah.)
So, in that case...arrows should do less to compensate for range and screw realism?
So, in that case...arrows should do less to compensate for range and screw realism?
That sums up the direction Gygax took early on, and it seems to have stuck. Somehow I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Re: sword vs. arrow size, bullets are smaller than arrows, too...
|
this is funny.
properly armed and with the ability to full attack at 110'+ without penalty, the ranger/fighter/etc shooting his comp longbow is putting out MORE damage than a melee fighter over the course of an average fight.
re: DR/???: what makes more sense, a golf-bag full of silver/cold iron/adamantine/etc. longswords, or a quiver with a handful of each of the proper type. (although i typically bring full quivers of all the materials i can afford at that time)
re: damage output
Ranger with Comp Longbow of appropriate strength +1 (say, str 16 for an average fighter-type) is putting out 1d8+4 at MINIMUM, potentially 3-4 shots every turn. And thats just base damage, with no buffs from haste, bardic music, energy arrows, better magic weapons, favored enemy, etc.
Fighter gets to tack on his weapon training, wpn spec, etc on that damage, assuming he specialized at least a little in archery.
for maximum damage output, +5 Exit Wounds Force bow is the way to go. Not OGL by any means, but you're putting out 1d8+5+1d6 before adding in anything else, shooting THROUGH the enemies, and dealing force damage rather than arrow damage.
one or 2 rangers in my game history REALLY stand out as the primary killers...consistently getting the drop on something with wicked high spot and stealth, then unleashing a storm of pointy death from far away.
-t
So, in that case...arrows should do less to compensate for range and screw realism?That sums up the direction Gygax took early on, and it seems to have stuck. Somehow I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Re: sword vs. arrow size, bullets are smaller than arrows, too...
And so clearly they do less damage! Caber fight, anyone?
I've had the same experience as Psionic Hamster. I've had games wherein the melees got bored b/c the archer killed everything before it could close (lazy DM, lots of open ground, etc etc).
And so clearly they do less damage! Caber fight, anyone?
YES! Why do you suppose the swords in most of the artwork are 15 feet long? :D
So, in that case...arrows should do less to compensate for range and screw realism?That sums up the direction Gygax took early on, and it seems to have stuck. Somehow I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Re: sword vs. arrow size, bullets are smaller than arrows, too...
Despite the fact that historically sling bullets ranged from 2 ounces to 1 pound and a number of differnt arrowheads existed for different circumstances. Some crossbows also fired stones or metal bolts.
Archery Ranger is in danger ...
Archery Ranger needs food badly...
---
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
Re: sword vs. arrow size, bullets are smaller than arrows, too...Despite the fact that historically sling bullets ranged from 2 ounces to 1 pound
"Bullets," as in rifle and pistol ammunition, not as in "sling bullets."
I kinda want to make an evil sling master as an NPC villain now. Everyone laughs at the duerger until his +5 firey burst sling starts a-slingin.
Archery Ranger needs food badly...
Archery Ranger is in danger ...
Archery Ranger shot the food.
The Long Bow should do 1d10+1d6 (or even +1d8) damage, and bleed.
Except that not every "hit" is a hit. D&D uses an exceptionally abstract system. An actual strike deals 3d8 (critical), whereas we can consider the (normal) 1d8 a near miss.
Low rolls represent less-damaging wounds, while Crits and high damage rolls represent serious wounds. Or, have i been playing this game incorrectly for 28 years? ;)
Dunno; I've been going off Gygax's take in the 1e Player's Handbook, in which he specifically states that not all hp loss represents actual wounds. YMMV.
I feel the sudden urge to play Gauntlet or Diablo... O_o
See you around, Kirth.
Sounds good, Kyrinn. Good convo all around, even if there aren't really any answers to either of our questions... The hp/damage system has long been one of the goofier things in D&D, but, well, it seems to work OK in actual practice, so who am I to complain?
|
archery in danger? veeeeery funny. "oh wow, I can get full attacks on anyone within sight, great!" archery has always been fine, if not broken.
here is what archery SHOULD be like if it were more like real life
long bow
dmg 1d6 crit 19-20x3 range 30 (-1 to attack rolls per 20 feet further)
special: bows negate a portion of armor equal to 4 or less (leather to chainshirt would give you no bonus, breastplate would give you +1)
*move action to reload
it would also need special rules for volley attacks ( multiple archers firing all at once)
|
Yes. Deep puncture wounds are almost always more life-threatening than deep slashes (unless an artery is cut). That's difficult to model with the current hit/damage system, though,
So, in that case...arrows should do less to compensate for range and screw realism?
That's why piercing weapons get x3 or even x4 on a critical, but do less damage on average. This models the "feast or famine" nature of hitting a vital organ vs blowthrough.
But, historically speaking, ANY wound that pierced the peritoneum was eventually fatal, due to infection and lack of effective treatment.
It depends very much if you allow the newer Ranger spells from WotC supplements. Hunters Mercy, for example, is a very good spell, which helps out in the damage department immensely.
Also, taking four levels of Fighter and two levels of Deepwood Sniper again helps out immensely.
And having a new "Power Attack for bows" feat in Deadly Aim is very good, too.
Yes. Deep puncture wounds are almost always more life-threatening than deep slashes (unless an artery is cut). That's difficult to model with the current hit/damage system, though, unless you gave maces like 4d6 base damage and no crits, and swords 3d6/20/x2, and bows 1d6/18-20/x8 or something.
The current system isn't "realistic," but it seems to work OK, so I'm quite hesitant to mess with it too much.
I had discussed an idea similar to ths with a friend about 2 weeks ago, but he and I both agreed it just complicated what is working just fine. My theory depended on the 'type' of the weapon and gave each weapon 'type' a specific feature/effect.
Slashing Weapons - + STR DMG. Bleed
Piercing Weapons - + Armor Piercing
Bludgeon Weapons - + Percentage Chance to Stun (10% Sm., 15% Med., 20% Lg. Size)
This concept also came along with armor 'types' having specific Damage Reductions also.
Leather - no DR
Chain - DR 5/ Slashing
Plate - DR 5/ Slashing & Bludgeon
Again, it was an idea, not a suggestion, but regardless we decided against it due to the whole "don't fix what isn't broken" train of thought.
It depends very much if you allow the newer Ranger spells from WotC supplements. Hunters Mercy, for example, is a very good spell, which helps out in the damage department immensely.
Also, taking four levels of Fighter and two levels of Deepwood Sniper again helps out immensely.
And having a new "Power Attack for bows" feat in Deadly Aim is very good, too.
I personally prefer the 'Order of the Bow Initiate' when it comes to non-core book prestige classes.
You don't really need 4 levels of Fighter, 2 will suffice, at least as a Human. The Ranger gets the Bow feats, the fighter helps pump out the 'Shot on the Run' tree feats. This way your stationary 'machinegun' (3+ attacks/round) can be fired on the run when you get threatened, if ever... since your likely firing at 100+ feet away from combat. :)
Original Topic Response:
As for damage at higher levels, all Fighters, melee or ranged are for the most part equipment dependant, better aka Magical weapons and armor are the only way to improve.
You could always find a way to get 'Enlarged' magically and fire small 'tree trunks'(large arrows) at your enemies for 2d6+Str Dmg. each (requires composite bow for STR bonus of course), although then you'll lose 2 AC while firing from the other end of the football field... could be a problem... on some planet, lol.
Add 'Holy' to the bow for +2d6 more vs. Evil or some random 'Energy type' for an additional +1d6 on any monster, that'll put you up in the 3d6+STR or 4d6+STR for 3+ attacks a round... I fail to see the lack of damage, sorry. The bow would be approximately 20,000 gp, but you're DEX fighter who is usually no where near combat so you can skimp on armor... 1,100 gp Mithril Chain Shirt or 5,??? gp Elven Chainmail, partially because you need to have something that allows your DEX bonus. If your campaign is low-treasure, low-magic or non-magical then you likely don't have a need for higher damage anyway.
See you around, Kirth.Sounds good, Kyrinn. Good convo all around, even if there aren't really any answers to either of our questions... The hp/damage system has long been one of the goofier things in D&D, but, well, it seems to work OK in actual practice, so who am I to complain?
Sad, but true. Many of the things that go on in the D&D game world are rarely achieved by some of our greatest Olympic atheletes. However without the coolness of being able to fire 3 arrows the range of 2 football fields and kill a small goblin or being able to sprint 120' in 6 seconds, ((Monk, Barbarian/Scout, or Catfolk with any of the above.) you know the same speed as a horse!!) what kind of heroes would we be playing?
My guess is that it would be more like Deadlands... if you survive a single gunfight you're lucky, survive two... you win something, lol! A cupie doll... with a stick of dynamite in it BOOM!