All the way back to 3.5, whenever someone played an archer, the melee warriors felt a bit like suckers.
In Pathfinder, the archers seem to be even more ahead.
1) archers get full attacks much more often than melee fighters
2) Point Blank Shot is another +1/+1 to attack/damage over what a melee warrior can get with a condition that's very, very commonly fulfilled
3) Rapid Shot is one of the most valuable boosts for a warrior, a whole new attack, available at 1st level
4) Manyshot doubles your base damage on your first attack, available at 6th-level
5) the greatest disadvantage of ranged combat, cover, is completely obviated by Improved Precise Shot at 11th level (or 6th level for rangers)
6) another great disadvantage, not being able to convert surplus attack bonus into damage, is solved in Pathfinder by Deadly Aim, which is as good as Power Attack for a sword & shield fighter
Imagine a feat for a sword & shield warrior that gives +1/+1 to against enemies you attacked last round, and another one that gives an extra attack with a -2 penalty to all attacks, and another that lets your first sword swing deal double damage. Would you allow this in your game? Does it sound overpowered?
And yet that's what the archers get as a matter of course, at less risk then the melee guys.
|
All the way back to 3.5, whenever someone played an archer, the melee warriors felt a bit like suckers.
In Pathfinder, the archers seem to be even more ahead.
1) archers get full attacks much more often than melee fighters
2) Point Blank Shot is another +1/+1 to attack/damage over what a melee warrior can get with a condition that's very, very commonly fulfilled
3) Rapid Shot is one of the most valuable boosts for a warrior, a whole new attack, available at 1st level
4) Manyshot doubles your base damage on your first attack, available at 6th-level
5) the greatest disadvantage of ranged combat, cover, is completely obviated by Improved Precise Shot at 11th level (or 6th level for rangers)
6) another great disadvantage, not being able to convert surplus attack bonus into damage, is solved in Pathfinder by Deadly Aim, which is as good as Power Attack for a sword & shield fighterImagine a feat for a sword & shield warrior that gives +1/+1 to against enemies you attacked last round, and another one that gives an extra attack with a -2 penalty to all attacks, and another that lets your first sword swing deal double damage. Would you allow this in your game? Does it sound overpowered?
And yet that's what the archers get as a matter of course, at less risk then the melee guys.
Main thing is damage. In melee you add your strength at minimum. Two handed it's strength and a 1/2. Add power attack and you are really laying the lumber. Add cleave and now you basically get an additional attack. Or you can go two weapon and actually add an additional attack, while getting feats like double slice and rend.
Second, combat maneuvers.
Third, disrupt casters.
That is off the top of my head. Damage is the big thing, you start looking at the feats and you can do a ridiculous amount of damage in a single attack, not to mention a full round of attacks.
Ranged combatants have quite heavy feat tax to become effective.
Melee combatant with Power Attack can close to one shot everything at first few levels.
Archers and especially crossbowmen require pile of feats to reach the same efficiency:
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
+something to increase the damage
..and when playing with crossbows, add following to the list:
Rapid Reload
Crossbow Mastery
Ranged combatants need to position themselves to have clear line to the target (or pick more feats to remove the cover from obstacles, allies and enemies on the way).
In addition to what's been said above:
- you have to keep track of ammunition, though some GMs couldn't care less
- cover is a @#&%$
- ranged weapons tend to deal 1d8 base or less
- feat-intensive compared to melee
- often requires you to split your priority between Str and Dex
But yes, Deadly Aim fixes what I felt was the biggest problem with ranged combat in 3.5e. Throwing builds still suffer at high levels (equipping them is insanely expensive), but archery is wonderful. I love the staff sling for halflings with the alternate racial trait that lets them reload as a free action. (I usually house rule that reloading a sling is a free action anyway, but it's nice when I play under a different GM.)
Yeah, tactically, it's smart to take out the ranged units early, or at least keep them disrupted enough that they can't sit there and full attack you into oblivion. Archers tend to get a lot of attention when fighting intelligent, organized opponents.
Archers also need a meat shield. I've sat in on games where the archers didn't get even one full attack all night because they kept getting meleed by creatures with reach/Lunge/Step Up.
One group:
Human Archer Fighter
Human Archer Rogue
Gnome Archer Druid
Halfling Archer Bard
Drow Draconic Sorcerer
The mage did more melee damage than the rest of the party combined (with his claws) and most of the party's time was spent withdrawing. I felt compelled to bring a Paladin Tripper into that game (you know, out of pity)
Archers also need a meat shield. I've sat in on games where the archers didn't get even one full attack all night because they kept getting meleed by creatures with reach/Lunge/Step Up.
One group:
Human Archer Fighter
Human Archer Rogue
Gnome Archer Druid
Halfling Archer Bard
Drow Draconic SorcererThe mage did more melee damage than the rest of the party combined (with his claws) and most of the party's time was spent withdrawing. I felt compelled to bring a Paladin Tripper into that game (you know, out of pity)
Well, that's a very skewed group. I can easily believe that they've had trouble with monsters locking them down in melee.
But in your typical fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue group, wouldn't you say a hypothetical 5th guy is much safer being an archer than a melee warrior, with comparable (if not greater) results in terms of killin' monsters? Opponents could conceivably make a point of trying to tie him up in melee, but they'll get ripped apart by the others.
I'm not happy with the fact that archers get fighter-level damage output, fighter-level defenses, fighter-level durability, and wizard-level exposure to monsters.
- feat-intensive compared to melee
It's arguable whether this is an disadvantage or an advantage.
Especially for a fighter, eventually/occasionally there comes a point where you cannot just dump more resources into your main thing. So you branch out, learn a new trick, take Iron Will. And this is mostly a good thing.
But if you're an archer, on top of Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization &c., you get to stack Rapid Shot, Point-Blank Shot, Manyshot.
Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot are expenditures a melee warrior doesn't have to make, but they completely eliminate the two most inconvenient penalties for archery, and remove the need for positioning.
In my experience, as an archer acquires feats, he very quickly turns from a skirmisher constantly on the lookout for opportunities (disengaged enemies, clear lines of fire), into a fixed emplacement just pumping out damage at a steady (and enviable!) rate. I think the early-game archer is much more interesting.
WIND WALL.
True, wind wall will stop an archer cold.
However, I've been playing 3E/Pathfinder for some ten years, and I can count the number of times I've seen wind wall used on the fingers of one hand.
It's a highly situational spell, of little use unless you're specifically setting out to counter an archer. And I'll argue that if the DM needs to specifically set out to counter one character (or character type), that (or character type) is probably overpowered.
Oh, and flying creatures that steal your precious bow via a disarm combat maneuver (no AOO except with very specific feats) then laugh at your feeble backup weapon.
Are you seriously suggesting flying creatures pose more of a problem for an archer than they do for a melee warrior? :D
|
Some houserule suggestions:
- Using a ranged weapon you cannot make multiple attacks per round on multiple targets without taking an attack roll penalty. I have a complicated rule that does help weaken the archers where you can shift to a new target but for every 5' the new target is from the first one, it adds a -2 penalty to the attack roll. Also if you change targets in a full attack, precise shot and manyshot cannot be used on the subsequent target. Finally you cannot attack more than two targets in around with a ranged weapon. This is to simulate the fact that with a REAL bow and arrow, to change targets takes focus and time.
- We have added a houserule that an enemy that moves more than 10' in the round gets a +2 to AC against ranged attacks until their next turn in the initiative order. This helps the PC's just as much as it weakens their ranged attacks.
- Do not forget cover and movement. The way I read the rules (not sure if it is right or not) an archer gets a -4 if the target is in melee (which is easily erased with precise shot) BUT they also should contend with soft cover from the allies that are often in the way and take penalties when their target moves. Make the archer have to position themselves to get best effect. Also, when the cover is an ally and they roll poorly, make the attack hit the ally once in a while.
- I also houserule that a shot with precise shot must be within 30' range (the logic here is that you have to have point blank shot to get the feat so it only applies to a point blank shot). Much more realistic. We also houserule that the point blank shot cannot be combined with rapid shot or manyshot. Make them choose between a better chance of hitting or lots of arrows at less precision. (This is sort of equivalent to making the melee fighter choose between full attack and a vital strike attack).
- Last and this went over like a lead brick at first but actually has made the ranger more specialized - for a character to carry a bow or crossbow on their person (not in their hands or efficient quiver) it applies an armor check penalty to all dexterity based skills (except disable device; different houserule), a spell failure chance and a bow cannot be "stowed" in this way while wearing a backpack. Shortbow and light crossbow is -1 and 5% and longbow / heavy crossbow is -2 and 15%.
If you don't like houserules to the archery - make sure you use enemies with the same ability to barrage the PC's with huge missile damage and return the favor.
|
No, but consider this- All a melee warrior needs to do to compete is drink a potion of fly. If the flier tries to grab his melee weapon, he might get an AOO to prevent it. The archer doesn't generally have that luxury.
Archers are also a little more MAD than melee warriors tend to be. Several good points have been made already about cover, feat tax etc. as well.
Basically if your DM has every encounter in a static location, with no terrain features, nothing interesting going on, bad guys starting a distance away then the archer will always do extremely well.
If the DM prefers to have foes ambush your camp with trolls in the middle of the night however, i'd much rather be a melee warrior...
.
..
...
....
.....
o_o Generally speaking, range rules. There's a reason why we went from viscous chunk of rock to spear to bow to gun to ICBM
...and as the saying doesn't go (but probably should):
''If you want to avoid be bludgeoned to death by the bearded madman with the 20lb maul - ''
So yes, generally speaking, shooting the obnoxious minion from 100 yards away before they can crush your skill is a GOOD IDEA.
However, some things to consider:
- It's not always possible to get a range advantage on your target - they might surprise you and/or force a ranged combatant into melee range. (see below)
- A ranged combatant can be forced into melee range. The easiest way to do this is for the target to hide behind something/block the ranged combatant's LOS. Then they wait - if the ranged combatant really wants the target dead then they're forced to close the distance and engage in melee.
- The scenario might not favour a ranged combatant. For example, combat could could take place in a a series of small room/narrow corridors/underwater/on the back of bucking dragon etc
::
So yes, not all forms of combat are equal.
Luckily a smart fighter will not rely on one tool/technique/method - they will be prepared for ranged and melee scenarios.
Of course, if players insist on building characters around one scenario of combat then.. well..
- Using a ranged weapon you cannot make multiple attacks per round on multiple targets without taking an attack roll penalty. I have a complicated rule that does help weaken the archers where you can shift to a new target but for every 5' the new target is from the first one, it adds a -2 penalty to the attack roll. Also if you change targets in a full attack, precise shot and manyshot cannot be used on the subsequent target. Finally you cannot attack more than two targets in around with a ranged weapon. This is to simulate the fact that with a REAL bow and arrow, to change targets takes focus and time.
That's interesting. This never occurred to me, but it sounds very reasonable, if a bit fiddly (but it could easily be simplified significantly to a fixed penalty for switching targets).
- Do not forget cover and movement.
When Improved Precise Shot comes along (as soon as 6th for rangers!), you might as well. :)
It's one of the main offenders. I think it's much more interesting if the archer has to work to line up a shot rather than just picking a must-have feat that makes targeting and positioning irrelevant.
- I also houserule that a shot with precise shot must be within 30' range (the logic here is that you have to have point blank shot to get the feat so it only applies to a point blank shot). Much more realistic. We also houserule that the point blank shot cannot be combined with rapid shot or manyshot. Make them choose between a better chance of hitting or lots of arrows at less precision. (This is sort of equivalent to making the melee fighter choose between full attack and a vital strike attack).
That's very much in the spirit of what I'm thinking about. It annoys me that melee warriors must/can choose which of their tricks to use any given round, while archers quickly settle into "I Rapid Manyshot Point-Blank Deadly Aim full attack... again".
Thanks, good ideas.
At lower levels, when the PCs don't have any magic weapon, Sunder is very effective against archers, because bow have only a hardness of 5 and since a bow is not a melee weapon, the archer don't get an AoO against any Sunder attempt, even if the sundering creature don't have the Improved Sunder feat.
At higher levels, disarm and trip are better against archers. Sunder is mostly useless against magic weapon. If a creature does enough damage to break a magic weapon whit a single hit, then she does enough damage to kill the archer with a single hit instead.
I house-ruled that arrows shooted by a magic bow don't get the ability to bypass DR/magic. You have to use actual magic arrows instead. That make the choice between buying a magic bow or magic arrows less of a no-brainer. :)
It annoys me that melee warriors must/can choose which of their tricks to use any given round, while archers quickly settle into "I Rapid Manyshot Point-Blank Deadly Aim full attack... again".
Thanks, good ideas.
Personally, we avoid building a character around pure range or pure melee.
If players insist on building purely ranged or purely melee combatant then.. well, in our games they would die very quickly.
I think limiting perceptions of combatants to either A or B robs the game of much of it's variety.
The biggest problem for ranged fighters in my experience is that it takes too short a period of time to cross open ground and hit them (usually given the distances encounters happen at, one or two rounds is the absolute maximum it takes). Once you close the distance with an archery specialist you generally have just a 2nd rate melee fighter to worry about.
Personally, we avoid building a character around pure range or pure melee.If players insist on building purely ranged or purely melee combatant then.. well, in our games they would die very quickly.
I think limiting perceptions of combatants to either A or B robs the game of much of it's variety.
This is good here. Especially against intelligent creatures, and sometimes against unintelligent ones. After all, that bear isn't going to like being peppered with arrows any more than the evil wizard.
Not true.
You need to use an Excel sheet to know against what AC you can use Deadly Aim. What's more, you need to use an Excel sheet to know if Deadly Aim is of some use to your archer build.
My 17th level high Dex archer will do up to 30% less damage if using DA against the wrong enemy,
Out of curiosity, what enemy is that?
In my experience, if you're reasonably focused on your mode of offense, Deadly Aim and Power Attack are almost always the way to go (i.e. it might not be a good idea for a Str 13 cleric or a Dex 13 melee warrior forced into ranged combat, but for your typical high-Str melee warrior, or a high-Dex archer, it is).
What's your attack and damage, and what's the enemy's AC?
The most obvious disadvantage for ranged specialists would be their distinct lack of melee skills. As a DM, bring that into play now and again.
To me the balance is the amount of feats needed to be top notch. You need PBS/Precise Shot/Rapid Shot/Deadly Aim to be even remotely viable, as opposed to Power Attack if you want to be a THF. THF get +hit and *1.5 damage from Str. An archer needs Dex to hit and Str to damage, only adds 1x their Str to damage, and even THEN only when he pays for a bow that adds his SPECIFIC amount to damage. If his Str is boosted (Rage, Bulls Str) it doesn't help him, whereas if his Str is reduced at all (Fatigue, Ray of Enfeeb) not only does it affect his damage but he gets a -2 to fire his own special bow because his Str is no longer up to snuff.
I'm playing an archer (Sor1/Ftr6/AA2) in a game right now, and I do comparable damage in your AP dungeon crawl as the Paladin with a Keen Falchion, due to constant soft cover. In a standard dungeon scenario just count on having to hit ACs of +4 over the norm because of this, until you can get Improved Precise Shot. His AC is about also 5 higher than mine, and his saves are significantly better.
Archer Fighter variant really reduces alot of the penalties people mention:
They can do ranged maneuvers, and even get certain `must take` as free Class Features.
(and not-so-must take, like Catch Arrows, though their variant of it gives them an extra attack as well)
One penalty that sticks around is bows are easier to sunder than metal melee weapons.
And a melee character can probably still use most of their feats without their main weapon, while an archer can`t. A 2-Handed weapon specialist is going to be hampered if they are Grappled, but they can still use their STR investment and probably have SOME 1-handed option (or can Grapple well themselves). An archer can`t use their bow, have dumped alot of feats on negating the archery penalties, and their stats just don`t work well for melee or grapples.
Melee means that in exchange for yourself being in a more dangerous location (possibly) and sometimes needing to move to get where you need to be (which prevents Full Attacks barring certain Barbarian and Mobile Fighter builds)... You get bigger damage and also more opportunities for attacks via Attacks of Opportunity. Look at the DPR threads, which all look at Full Attack damage. But look at the numbers for an additional attack at Full BAB. Getting even 1 AoO, can make many melee builds out-damage Full Attacking Archers without even needing to Full Attack themselves. Likewise for Cleave. There`s also alot of special effects you can pull off on Crits, which can be better optimized via melee weapons and not ranged weapons.
Another thing is that especially for Fighters with lots of Feats, it`s relatively easy to pick up the low hanging fruit of Ranged combat, e.g. PBS, Rapid Fire and Manyshot which make a Ranged Full Attack do it`s damage. Any melee specialist Fighter can take those Feats so they can Full Attack with a bow until the enemy closes, where they switch to melee. They have no need for the Feats negating the penalties for cover, shooting into melee, etc, because they plan to be in melee themselves.
Also, it seems like some feel that broad usage of wind wall and other anti-archer spells is `singling out the archer` or being mean some how. But if archers truly are so effective, the NPCs at large in the world will also be effectively using archers, meaning other NPCs will want ways to counter this very common and effective tactic. Now, dedicating spells known or memorized to these spells would be a drag, but any decently funded caster should have scrolls or wands of these spells, and use them when expecting combat which could include archers.
Archers tend to do lesser damage per hit, meaning DR is much more effective agasint them. Probably twice as effective compared to 2-Handed melee weapons.
OP: It is true a good archer build can put the hurt on the enemy better than a typical melee build, but it gives up a crap ton of versatility.
Aside from killing the enemy, your archer can do NOTHING to protect the wizard (or other squishy character) in the party, nor can he really do anything else for that matter. He can't disarm powerful weapons, trip humanoids, lock down the battlefield with reach, stun-lock enemies into place, frighten small armies away, grapple spellcasters, or do a dozen other useful things that melee fighters are known for.
Archers ARE powerful. They are also boring as hell.
Archers also need a meat shield. I've sat in on games where the archers didn't get even one full attack all night because they kept getting meleed by creatures with reach/Lunge/Step Up.
One group:
Human Archer Fighter
Human Archer Rogue
Gnome Archer Druid
Halfling Archer Bard
Drow Draconic SorcererThe mage did more melee damage than the rest of the party combined (with his claws) and most of the party's time was spent withdrawing. I felt compelled to bring a Paladin Tripper into that game (you know, out of pity)
I'm guessing your GM always started your encounters within charge range of the enemy if not closer, right? I'm not surprised they got chewed up.
Even powerful characters will suck if their GMs are out to screw them. Did the GM even use the terrain Perception ranges in the environment chapter to give them a chance of starting combat at long range?
I have also had a party screwed over by archers in 3.5. That is what the GM said was the problem after after tpking us.
APG Archer variant Fighters CAN disarm, sunder, trip and even `grapple` spellcasters (though not Pin).
They just don`t have the AoO opportunities to apply those maneuvers (or just damaging attacks).
Besides Crit effects not working as well with lower Crit ranges,
they also don`t have options like Stunning assault (melee only) or Stunning Fist.
(Actually, can the Zen Archer Monk variant apply Stunning Fist via their Ranged Attacks?)
|
WIND WALL.True, wind wall will stop an archer cold.
However, I've been playing 3E/Pathfinder for some ten years, and I can count the number of times I've seen wind wall used on the fingers of one hand.
It's a highly situational spell, of little use unless you're specifically setting out to counter an archer. And I'll argue that if the DM needs to specifically set out to counter one character (or character type), that (or character type) is probably overpowered.
Umm windwall also protects against gas based attacks. Small and tiny flying critters like stirge. On top of shutting down all archers. Umm sorry, but wha?!? It get tossed around all the time in my games.
Umm windwall also protects against gas based attacks. Small and tiny flying critters like stirge. On top of shutting down all archers. Umm sorry, but wha?!? It get tossed around all the time in my games.
Compared to something like haste or prayer or magic vestment, which compete for the same slot, it's still terribly situational.
The biggest limitation of archers is identical to that for spell-casters: line of sight to the target. Plenty of times you will be limited by any or all of light / lack thereof, terrain and/or total blockage (smokesticks, fog clouds just to name two seen at 1st level) of LoS.
There will be times that the archer shines - plenty of them. There will also be times that the archer does not. Par for the course as an adventurer. :)
|
|
Umm windwall also protects against gas based attacks. Small and tiny flying critters like stirge. On top of shutting down all archers. Umm sorry, but wha?!? It get tossed around all the time in my games.Compared to something like haste or prayer or magic vestment, which compete for the same slot, it's still terribly situational.
Umm I'd take windwall over prayer or magic vestment. Haste...well that depends on the party...but generally I'd take haste true. But then again haste is a benchmark spell...I'm sorry that windwall isn't better then the best 3rd level spell. And so you only get one 3rd level spell ever is that it? All your 3rd level spell that you ever cast is haste?
.
..
...
....
.....
...that fist you keep shaking. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
Umm I'd take windwall over prayer or magic vestment.Windwall is one of those spells that you demand that you have a scroll of just in case, as there are so many nice situations that it handles.
-James
Or just keep memorized...honestly we use it all the time in our games. But it is also a good scroll choice too as it isn't dependent on CL very much and there is no save DC. Course the higher CL is nice for shaping the wind wall into elaborate shapes for the battlefield :) .
I agree that archers are better off in PF than in 3.5, but I think in 3.5 they were moderately terrible.
But, to be fair, an awful lot of my 3.5 play involved monsters with DR that you either literally couldn't ever beat (e.g., huge earth elemental) or from a practical perspective couldn't beat (e.g. constructs with DR 10/adamantine and adamantine arrows are either completely unavailable or prohibitively expensive.) The only kind of 3.5 fighteryish angle that could stand up to those kinds of encounters and not look sad were your two-handed power attack junkies.
There is also one other major disadvantage to ranged combat that no one that I noticed mentioned. It is the most important one as well. The fact that the hit points that charecter who is a fighter type has that arent being used. I.E. 4 person party you have 2 fighters ones an archer, your front line now has X hp when that amount is a fraction of what it would be if that archer was melee.
I think its massively relevant.
Not really. The archer is a primary damage dealer the other party members try to protect.
As an example, in the Legacy of Fire AP I ran the party's wizard and sorcerer served as the bait for the final BBEG while the fighter and cleric defended the archer who downed it in 3 rounds.
There is also one other major disadvantage to ranged combat that no one that I noticed mentioned. It is the most important one as well. The fact that the hit points that charecter who is a fighter type has that arent being used. I.E. 4 person party you have 2 fighters ones an archer, your front line now has X hp when that amount is a fraction of what it would be if that archer was melee.
I think its massively relevant.
Not really. The archer is a primary damage dealer the other party members try to protect.
As an example, in the Legacy of Fire AP I ran the party's wizard and sorcerer served as the bait for the final BBEG while the fighter and cleric defended the archer who downed it in 3 rounds.
Why wasn't the BBEG invisible, and what stopped him from flying over to destroy the bow/disarm the bow while invisible?
Why wasn't the BBEG invisible, and what stopped him from flying over to destroy the bow/disarm the bow while invisible?
Not really. The archer is a primary damage dealer the other party members try to protect.As an example, in the Legacy of Fire AP I ran the party's wizard and sorcerer served as the bait for the final BBEG while the fighter and cleric defended the archer who downed it in 3 rounds.
Invisibility isn't effective at the end of an AP - in this case, against a level 15 party.
Round 1 - BBEG appears, bases sorcerer and wizard, hits wizard for 2/3 of his hp. Archer full attacks.
Round 2 - BBEG tries to charge archer, but is blocked by fighter's readied action. Archer full attacks.
Round 3 - BBEG could double move to base archer, but archer has Point Blank Master making it pointless. BBEG kills fighter. Archer full attacks, killing BBEG.
Why wasn't the BBEG invisible, and what stopped him from flying over to destroy the bow/disarm the bow while invisible?
Not really. The archer is a primary damage dealer the other party members try to protect.As an example, in the Legacy of Fire AP I ran the party's wizard and sorcerer served as the bait for the final BBEG while the fighter and cleric defended the archer who downed it in 3 rounds.
Invisibility isn't effective at the end of an AP - in this case, against a level 15 party.
Round 1 - BBEG appears, bases sorcerer and wizard, hits wizard for 2/3 of his hp. Archer full attacks.
Round 2 - BBEG tries to charge archer, but is blocked by fighter's readied action. Archer full attacks.
Round 3 - BBEG could double move to base archer, but archer has Point Blank Master making it pointless. BBEG kills fighter. Archer full attacks, killing BBEG.
The monster can fly. He does not even need to charge. Fly to the archer. Take his bow. Unless a reach weapon is involved he should not be bothered by the readied action. I guess all of this is in hindsight, but my point is I think the archer could have been reached.
PS: As an aside I have not ran this campaign yet. I have heard it is one of the better ones. How much did your group enjoy it?
Archers have to eat a lot of penalties for the chance to hit with an attack that typically will not deal as much base damage, is harder to critical with and apply Critical Feats to, doesn't deal X4 on criticals, and the like.
Rapid Shot for instance is another attack, but attacking at -2 kind of sucks.
The two handed fighter could have taken something just as benign as Weapon Focus and he gets +3 to attack over a Rapid Shot Archer. At lower levels being +3 to attack is a massive, massive deal.
And if you play Pathfinder-Only finding those little +1s here and there is more difficult.
Whenever I played an archer I always felt like I was hitting less, and for less damage, and for less status conditions in Dungeons and Dragons unless I really went all out and scoured all the books to do silly things.
A pathfinder archer is a lot better than a 3.5 archer. In 3.5 they sucked. Almost anything with DR laughed at you, unless you were allowed splat books.
The monster can fly. He does not even need to charge. Fly to the archer. Take his bow. Unless a reach weapon is involved he should not be bothered by the readied action. I guess all of this is in hindsight, but my point is I think the archer could have been reached.
Even with fly, he still has to double move to get to the archer. After the archer full attacks, the cleric steps up and teleports himself and the archer to a new position.
PS: As an aside I have not ran this campaign yet. I have heard it is one of the better ones. How much did your group enjoy it?
It was a lot of fun for everyone. Good flavor. Good story. Access to wishes at the end.
There is also one other major disadvantage to ranged combat that no one that I noticed mentioned. It is the most important one as well. The fact that the hit points that charecter who is a fighter type has that arent being used. I.E. 4 person party you have 2 fighters ones an archer, your front line now has X hp when that amount is a fraction of what it would be if that archer was melee.
I think its massively relevant.
Not really. The archer is a primary damage dealer the other party members try to protect.
As an example, in the Legacy of Fire AP I ran the party's wizard and sorcerer served as the bait for the final BBEG while the fighter and cleric defended the archer who downed it in 3 rounds.
Primary damage dealer? all classes deal damage
clerics get heals
fighters control the field with position
wizards web and crowd control etc
and then u have the archer who rolls dice and deals damage.....that could be done by someone who mattersarchers are bad.....
Bad as in bad or bad as in good.
English is strange when a word can mean the opposite of what it means.
Rapid Shot for instance is another attack, but attacking at -2 kind of sucks.
The two handed fighter could have taken something just as benign as Weapon Focus and he gets +3 to attack over a Rapid Shot Archer. At lower levels being +3 to attack is a massive, massive deal.
Have you actually done the numbers, at lower levels?
If you need less than 18 to hit (with -2; 15 or less for the Weapon Focus guy), another attack and a -2 penalty is better than a +1 bonus. That's pretty much all the time.
A pathfinder archer is a lot better than a 3.5 archer. In 3.5 they sucked. Almost anything with DR laughed at you, unless you were allowed splat books.
Or unless you picked up 20 adamantine arrows, 20 cold iron arrows, and 20 silvered arrows to go with your +5 holy bow, while the melee warrior could only dream of three +5 holy longswords.