Post/Author/DateTime	Post
spyderfreek 06-28-07, 12:30 PM	This argument started in another thread and I did not want to completely hijack that thread... so here goes: I'm playing an archer right now, and like the rest of the party I had to prepare for the last battle. We all needed cold iron and good weapons. We all needed stoneskin. We all needed heroes feats, bear's endurance, greater heroism, greater magic weapon, death ward, keen, and a few other spells. And when push came to shove the demon we were fighting (Kerzit) appeared behind me. I was a full 60ft away from the closest party member (utilizing my ranged attack). Stone skin saved my elven rear end. My readied action to cast truestrike ended the surprise round. My high initiative allowed me to move and many shot/truestrike for 52 points of damage, the rogue had used dim door as a readied action last round and was able to attack for 57 damage. Everyone else moved up, but were unable to attack for various reasons. Next round, i fired again and scored 49 damage, the rogue did 99, and the barbarian pulled an amazing lucky strike crit out for 152 damage... ending Kerzit. Almost 400pts of damage in 2 rounds of combat (Kerzit was Dim anchored so he couldn't get away) and I did 1/4th of the damage. Now tell me how an archer is ineffective????? in response jaelis said this: Look at the numbers... you did about 50 pts/round, the rogue did 75. The barb got lucky with a crit, but what would he have landed without it? Surely 75 or more. I'm not saying archers are worthless. They can do decent, steady damage. But their damage isn't great, and they aren't generally available to soak up enemy attacks. We just haven't had a party where I felt like we wouldn't be better off with a meleer. And anyway, a 1:1 power attack is really kind of crappy. It's main benefit is to help penetrate DR, and if an archer facing DR doesn't have the right arrows, he is typically very screwed. here's my rebuttal: Prior to this battle we fought 6 glabs. The first one to appear teleported into flank for the rogue with a high initiative. She decimated it in one round. DM got smart and spread the rest around the battle field. 3 of the remaining 5 would eventually cast mirror image. The mage in our group put up an antimagic shell to protect herself and conserve spells. The monk was unable to hit, due to his complete in ability to know how to use his character effectively. Our cleric charged into battle with one of the glabs, as did the barb. Meanwhile, our rogue was doing steady damage to her glab and I was concentrating on the same one as the barb and cleric. With the aid of stone skin the glab closest to me was unable to bring me below 150 hp, so his PW: STun did nothing. At this time he fellows chose to use mirror image. The monk and the rogue were entertaining thier glab, the mage was toying with hers. Mine was getting frustrated. I side steped it and proceeded to remove all but 2 images from the glab that was fighting the barb & cleric. The barb used 2 of his 3 attacks to take out the last one, and hit for a fair amount of damage. The cleric followed up with a couple of solid hits. Round three began with me finishing off the glab attacking the barb & cleric. Rogue & monk were still monkeying around with their glab, but doing fine. Mage had shell up by this time and was waiting out the battle. Cleric & Barb split, each attacking their own glab. Barb Leap attacked charged (after being reminded he could) and missed. Cleirc cast a spell and hurt said glab a bit. Fourth round began with me scoring 4 hits (including a crit) on the barbs glab and doing 75-80 (don't fully remember) points of damage. Rogue & monk are still teasing theirs, but doiung steady damage. Cleric locks his into solo combat, firmly holding it's attention. Barb finishes ours and turns to face remaining visible combatant. Rogue finally finishes hers in 5th round, the as yet unable to hit monk runs to last glab and predictably misses. Cleric hits for a nominal amount of damage. I let loose with three, hit with four arrows doing 45-60 damage. Barb leap attack charges and this time hits (amazingly with a crit) for 150 damage. Final glab dies. I know the last glab may have been killed without my help, but I am 100% certain that the battle would have taken longer and that someone would have gone down without my archer. Comments? I always hear/read about how ineffective/useless a ranged attacker can be compared to a melee fighter. I beg to differ!
Majick 06-28-07, 12:34 PM	I quite like some of the ranged feats you can get like ranged sunder and pin and such, but if you don't prestige class into something like order of the bow or even just be a scout, you average fighter/ranger based archer tends to get their arse kicked, which is a sad but true fact :weep:
TheCobra 06-28-07, 12:36 PM	It's mainly things like wind wall and stormrage that really screw over archers. Even fog cloud, to some extent. They can certainly be good. Arrow selection is critical.
jaelis 06-28-07, 12:38 PM	Comments? I always hear/read about how ineffective/useless a ranged attacker can be compared to a melee fighter. I beg to differ! OK, but look at how that battle might have gone if you had been using a sword. Maybe one less attack per round, which matters, you wouldn't have popped as many images. And you would have had less flexibility about which images to pop, but unless you all were really spread out, that probably wouldn't have made much difference. But on the other hand, you almost certainly would have done more damage on your actual hits. The point is that in both of the fights you described, you didn't get any use out of what an archer really has: the ability to do damage at range. If you start a fight 120 ft apart, the archer is going to do great. Or if you have some way of staying apart, like a big chasm between the sides, then the archer will win it for you. But if the parties are in melee anyway, what are you doing that a meleer couldn't do? And in our campaigns, archers don't get such opportunities very often either. Though now that I say that, I'll have to be sure to put some in my adventure...
TheCobra 06-28-07, 12:45 PM	If your players think archers suck, just hit them with splitting bows and poisoned bane arrows. Ranger spells also help. Hunter's mercy, for example. Now if only you could snipe in a surprise round...
spyderfreek 06-28-07, 12:51 PM	Good question: In the glab battle, other than a 5ft step, I was able to remain in the same position and attack the entire field of battle. I could have helped the rogue and monk, but they claimed they were fine and didn't need the hlp. Every round I was able to use a full attack and be effective help for the entire party. Had the mage kept using spells I would have attacked the glab she was fighting, but it became unnecessary. OTOH, if I was a melee fighter, i would have had to use moverment to get from battle to battle. A couple of the glabs were further apart than a single move would have allowed. That would have put me in atleast 2 rounds of no attacks. In the Kerzit battle, I am not sure being an archer held an advantage, other than the fact we were in a small corridor. The whole party (including a summoned elder elemental and a righteous mighted cleric) would not have been able to get around the demon. By being able to step back (and using Imp Precise Shot), I was able to do my "consistant damage" without taking the place of a melee fighter. This allowed the barb a clear shot for his charge. We have a fairly large party (6 people), with a rogue, a melee/healer cleric, a barbarian, and a useless monk (I can say this because I based it off character op boards and helped him build it.) all in melee I didn't think we needed another melee. Our mage was runningout of spells quickly. By taking archer, I am able to help spead damage around more, and be that all important ranged support.
bobothechimp 06-28-07, 01:04 PM	Archery isn't necessarily about damage, the fact that you can turn enemies into pincoushins while not being hit yourself is pretty nice.
archerpwr 06-28-07, 01:14 PM	Archers up until complete scoundrel were the worst supported set of characters in 3.5. They get defeated by windwall at level 5. Only with the advent of complete scoundrel and swift hunter have archers actually been able to contribute meaningful damage. Anyone can pick up a bow and kill someone from 1000 feet if they have the time. That does not require optimization, but to be effective and do comparable to melee within 60 feet just didn't happen until complete scoundrel. Magic item compendium has the force weapon ability to bypass wind wall and champions of ruin has splitting. I'd say up until the last year of 3.5 archers got the shaft (3.5 OotBI is absolute crap), but now with the right build and equipment they can do reliable damage.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 02:07 PM	Archers up until complete scoundrel were the worst supported set of characters in 3.5. They get defeated by windwall at level 5. Only with the advent of complete scoundrel and swift hunter have archers actually been able to contribute meaningful damage. Anyone can pick up a bow and kill someone from 1000 feet if they have the time. That does not require optimization, but to be effective and do comparable to melee within 60 feet just didn't happen until complete scoundrel. Magic item compendium has the force weapon ability to bypass wind wall and champions of ruin has splitting. I'd say up until the last year of 3.5 archers got the shaft (3.5 OotBI is absolute crap), but now with the right build and equipment they can do reliable damage. Allowing 3.0 Deepwood Sniper helps, I've done it. :P
Dark1ord 06-28-07, 03:18 PM	if you don't prestige class into something like order of the bow (3.5 OotBI is absolute crap) I like to emphasize this issue, so I'm gonna agree with archerpwr pace majick (in so far as the latter was referring within 3.5) - you know, just to really point it out.
Argaud 06-28-07, 03:52 PM	Archers up until complete scoundrel were the worst supported set of characters in 3.5. They get defeated by windwall at level 5. Only with the advent of complete scoundrel and swift hunter have archers actually been able to contribute meaningful damage. Anyone can pick up a bow and kill someone from 1000 feet if they have the time. That does not require optimization, but to be effective and do comparable to melee within 60 feet just didn't happen until complete scoundrel. Magic item compendium has the force weapon ability to bypass wind wall and champions of ruin has splitting. I'd say up until the last year of 3.5 archers got the shaft (3.5 OotBI is absolute crap), but now with the right build and equipment they can do reliable damage. This is not exactly true. Windwalls is a static defense and needs to be supported by the ground. Moreover it is a spell that very few casters bother memorizing. Archers do good damage, but in little bits. Splitting and Force weapons (that ignore DR) are a big boost for them. But even without those a level 16 archer can shot 6 arrows round, 3 of them at the maxed to hit bonus (through Improved Rapid Shot and an item of Haste) and hit better than in melee thanks to the Bracers of Archery (there wasn't anything like that for melee before the MIC). Remember a pure fighter archer did more damage than your Swift Hunter build (which was pretty damn good) ;). And one can do almost the same with fighter 12/ ranger 8, which gives a character nice skills, some spells and the ability to use ranger wands. An optimized archer can do around 200-300 hp of damage each round at level 20, shooting at targets with ACs around 40. I'd advise the OP to check out Dictum Mortuum's Swift Hunter thread and the Fighter thread in the CO boards. They also had links to many links to archer threads, IIRC.
jaelis 06-28-07, 04:06 PM	An optimized archer can do around 200-300 hp of damage each round at level 20, shooting at targets with ACs around 40. Yeah, but they have optimized melee builds that get up into the thousands, don't they?
spyderfreek 06-28-07, 04:24 PM	Iowa must have a different version of DnD than the rest of the gaming community. Since when do you need to do thousands of points of damage by yorself? If I wanted a solo game I'd play NWN2 or Diablo. MY "measly" 50-60 points of damage is right on par with the rest of the group. I am quite happy where I am.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 04:27 PM	Iowa must have a different version of DnD than the rest of the gaming community. Since when do you need to do thousands of points of damage by yorself? If I wanted a solo game I'd play NWN2 or Diablo. MY "measly" 50-60 points of damage is right on par with the rest of the group. I am quite happy where I am. I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the melee guys do more... he could have said 20 vs 30 instead of 50 vs 75, it wouldn't have made any difference.
BW0222 06-28-07, 04:42 PM	Folks, D&D is a rock-paper-sissors game at higher levels. Of course there are times when archers are pretty useless. Just as a flying creature or anti-life shell makes melee types useless, an anti-magic shell makes spellcasters useless, undead nerf rogues, etc., etc. The fact is that an archer has a number of advantages. 1. With rapid shot, they can get multiple attacks are relatively low levels. 2. With mighty bows, they get their full strength bonus on all attacks. 3. They get their full attack in far more often. Melee types need to waste rounds closing, waiting for folks to close, etc. 4. They get to attack in surprise rounds -- rather than needing to close. 5. If they drop a target they can continue firing at additional targets, while melee folks have to move to reach another target. 6. You don't have to worry about reach. 7. You are generally out of direct danger of immediate attack. AC and hit points aren't so critical when you aren't in melee that often. 8. Weapons are cheap. A flaming bow is much less expensive than two flaming weapons for a TWF and you typically get extra attacks over someone with a flaming battle axe due to rapid shot. You can also stack with magical ammunication for much less cost than melee weapons. For example, flaming bow and 50 acid arrows cost 16,000gp. The same battle axe costs 32,000gp. 9. It is far easier to get around DR. You can easily carry silver, adamantine, cold iron, etc. arrows and it still works with your +1 frost bow. You can even quickly fire different types of arrows to see which one works. With melee weapons, you have to drop your existing +1 frost battle axe, draw an adamantine one, etc. 10. You can use them mounted and even make a full attack. 11. It allows you to disrupt spellcasters from a distance. 12. If you put light, darkness, or silence spells on the arrows you can fire them at/near folks. 13. If you are defending, levitating, flying, etc. you can often fire from cover locations where they can't get to you. In an otherwise balanced party, an archer makes a great addition. Help the wizard soften folks who want to play the distance game, disrupt enemy spellcasters, dish out damage while folks are closing, etc.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 05:14 PM	Corrections: Weapons are not cheap. Yes, getting a +1 flaming bow and acid arrows costs 16k... what happens after you've fired 50 times? Lots of attacks per round after all... anything beyond 150, buffing the bow is more efficient. 8k for bow, 8k for each bunch of 50 arrows vs 32k. And it doesn't take long to fire 150 times. Since bow and arrow pluses no longer stack as they did in 3.0 magic arrows are only really useful for very situational things (bane arrows for example), or making a +1 (various special properties) bow and GMW +5 arrows. Even MW proves to be a waste due to that 50:1 rule. Also, yes they can deal with material DR more effectively. Other types are more effective against them, because they do less damage per hit and while a 1:1 ranged power attack exists (to brute force DR with raw damage) it's unlikely even this will be allowed. So this is an offset ability that comes out about even overall. The rest I'll grant you. Well, one random thing. Rogues can SA for half vs normally immune creatures at the cost of +1 trap sense as an alternate class feature, and a rogue or anyone else can get a Truedeath weapon augment crystal for 10k which gives him +1d6 vs undead, ghost touch, and ability to apply precision based damage such as SA or critical hits normally against undead. Given the implications I think it safe to say every self respecting rogue who can do this will.
deviknyte 06-28-07, 06:05 PM	I'm going to go with ranged gets the screw. If you want effective damage you have to dish out the cash, repeatedly. A +5 bow with force/splitting and other enchantments on it and a bundle of arrows with +1 frost, shocking, sonic, acidic, and psionic on it is a costly way to make up for damage. Enchants or not a fair trade for the loss of power attack. A melee should have what it takes to bypass the DR and he has power attack. I also don't like all the no ranged attacks spells. Melee wins in the feat department as well. It requires less feats to do the damage in melee or get special attacks. The arguement of ranged trades damage for distancts is mute. A prepared character or challenge encounter should be ready for any of that. Being able to fly themselves, or dim door. You do get that 1000 foot you can't get me gap sometimes. And sometimes you get that I'm 200 feet in the air and you can only move half up to me. But those are rare occasions in most adventures. I think a power attack for all ranged weapons would even it out for ranged versus melee. Also a tome of battle ranged. But I feel the same about 2handed versus 2weapon (unless you have sneak attack).
theplaidknight 06-28-07, 08:48 PM	Archery should be "less powerful". If an archer's ranged attacks' damage could easily keep up with what the melee-types can do face-to-face, they might just be placed with the things considered overpowered. Don't get me wrong, the image of a sniper taking down an orc at a hundred yards with a shot through the eye is nice, it seems more balanced to need at least a critical hit to manage something like that. Power Attacking with a bow also seems totally ludicrous to me. Just my 2 copper, I don't mind dominating the damage output of a party either, it just doesn't seem fair for archers to fight like Legolas in a D & D where the monsters are a little cleverer than orcs and goblins.
jaelis 06-28-07, 08:55 PM	To clarify, the power attack idea came up in a called shots discussion. It was suggested that power attack could be considered a form of called shot, in the sense that you're trading a penalty to hit for extra damage. But that logic would apply to an archer as well. No one was claiming that the existing power attack logic should apply to an archer.
danielinthewolvesden 06-28-07, 10:29 PM	Archers are fine as damage dealers. However, that is about all they can do. Let us look at a few other damage dealing archetypes: Tank- deals damage, and more importantly SOAKs damage and stops the bad guys from getting to the "squishies". Rogue: Deals damage, and more importantly- scouts, finds and disarms traps. Arcanist: deals damage- in a wide variety of types. AND boosts the party and prvide utility spells. A archer is fine as a 5th or 6th member a team but they can't take the place of any of the 4 main roles.
Waldo_di 06-28-07, 10:56 PM	Archer can really accel in some situations my Half-orc Ranger Has a +2 Giant Bane bow, I got flame arrows from a potion and favorite enemy giants guess who I suprise... A Frost Giant, I shoot him in suprise beat his init and full shot him lets see the damage... suprise 1d8+14+2d6+1d6x 1.5 = 28 or 29 point of damage on the first suprise round now lets see full round 3d8+42+6d6+3d6X1.5 = almost 90. Lets see he's dead... Next. Granted Fighters do more damage but you can't win them all I mean you can shoot from distance you get an extra shot you can distrubute them. D&D is not only based on damage but Versatility and Roleplaying.
Taeurus_Spfiinxer 06-28-07, 11:37 PM	You guys do know you can "search" for those overly-expensive magic you fire and get most of them back since nearly all of them will still be in the enemy, right? Just thought I'd point that out or maybe that's just a house rule or something I've just gotten used to. Even if it is a house rule it makes too much sense not to get used =P.
jaelis 06-28-07, 11:40 PM	The actual rule is that you can retrieve 50% of ammunition that misses, and none of the ammunition that hits.
Taeurus_Spfiinxer 06-28-07, 11:48 PM	The actual rule is that you can retrieve 50% of ammunition that misses, and none of the ammunition that hits. O_o that doesn't make much (emphasizing much) sense. And in 5 years I don't see how I've missed that rule though I have been wrong before =). What page is this on precisely?
jaelis 06-28-07, 11:51 PM	PHB pg 113, under the ammunition rules. And it's repeated in the DMG pg 221 for magic ammunition specifically.
Phalo 06-28-07, 11:54 PM	This is not exactly true. Windwalls is a static defense and needs to be supported by the ground. Moreover it is a spell that very few casters bother memorizing. Archers do good damage, but in little bits. Splitting and Force weapons (that ignore DR) are a big boost for them. But even without those a level 16 archer can shot 6 arrows round, 3 of them at the maxed to hit bonus (through Improved Rapid Shot and an item of Haste) and hit better than in melee thanks to the Bracers of Archery (there wasn't anything like that for melee before the MIC). Remember a pure fighter archer did more damage than your Swift Hunter build (which was pretty damn good) ;). And one can do almost the same with fighter 12/ ranger 8, which gives a character nice skills, some spells and the ability to use ranger wands. An optimized archer can do around 200-300 hp of damage each round at level 20, shooting at targets with ACs around 40. I'd advise the OP to check out Dictum Mortuum's Swift Hunter thread and the Fighter thread in the CO boards. They also had links to many links to archer threads, IIRC. Hate to throw a wrench in the works but lets skip wind wall what about Entropic Shield at low levels and Repel Wood at high levels. Personally i like archers and enjoy playing them but I tend to keep in mind bows are a pain in a dungeon crawl. I tend to roll natural 1's fairly consistently so snapped bow strings are a problem in a battle.
Phalo 06-29-07, 12:06 AM	O_o that doesn't make much (emphasizing much) sense. And in 5 years I don't see how I've missed that rule though I have been wrong before =). What page is this on precisely? it actually makes real good sense that 50% of the miss would be broken. Miss with a wooden arrow and the shafts breaks fairly easily. And the ones that hit could easily be snapped off in the enemies movement.
Taeurus_Spfiinxer 06-29-07, 12:07 AM	PHB pg 113, under the ammunition rules. And it's repeated in the DMG pg 221 for magic ammunition specifically. Ah, well I'm glad my DM's have either overlooked this rule or rejected for the aforementioned ruling I've lived under as it feels more realistic. Even from a historical standpoint archers in battles woud retrieve as many arrows as possible from fallen foes as it was cheaper and worked very well for the battle engine. Oh well, I guess not everything is perfect =P.
Ulandorf_TheBlue 06-29-07, 12:07 AM	I think it makes perfect sense that any of the arrows that you miss with have a chance (50%) of breaking or becoming lost forever. It's better than bolts that always break upon collision. As a side note, there is a PrC in 3.0 that gives archers power attack with a bow as well as threatened spaces as a reach weapon in the Silver Marches I believe (could be wrong). Even though, 1:1 still might not be that much worth it unless you're fighting low AC mobs.
Taeurus_Spfiinxer 06-29-07, 12:15 AM	Everyone seems to have missed the REST of the rule where it says none of what hits. That was what i was saying doesn't made sense. I've done battle recreations before and those wooden arrows are actually very resistent and can be reused very easily. Sorry to sound like the know-it-all jerk.
Archangel62 06-29-07, 12:16 AM	The problem that archers, and most non-magical ranged characters, face is that quite frankly the system doesn't support them very well. Some of it has to do with stats, an archer needs a good dexterity but they also need a good strength (crossbows just aren't that good) and while the +4 belt of strength is cool for the archer the melee guy gets more out of it AND they get it immediately rather than having to get an entirely new bow. The archer is a useful tactical character, and good at defending, unfortunately the adventuring career is a decidedly offensive one and has a fairly limited field of tactics. The ranged character also has to fear getting attacked if too far from the main group while shooting and getting ambushed or in other ways assaulted. Mounted archery works fairly well but is rather feat intensive and has the problem of the weak mount. Also, many of the booster feats stop working after 30 feet, which somewhat limits the tactical viability of the standard archer (30 feet is charge range, I'm getting OUT of there). Not to mention that many of the prestige classes available either require unfavorable multiclassing (arcane archer unless you go Hexblade) don't give adequate abilities (order of the bow initiate) or are class specific (various outrider feats that require you to be a paladin, druid, or ranger).
AllisterH 06-29-07, 07:41 AM	Here's a question then. How much damage should an archer do? For argument's sake, let's say a barbarian using PA does 10 pts of damage, how much damage should the archer do in comparison?
The_Shaman 06-29-07, 07:49 AM	Hmm, for a barbarian (the masheriest of all mashers) using particularly hefty swings... I would say 5, perhaps less. The problem is, what to do from an optimization standpoint? There are no called shots to aim for the throat of a cloud giant (which a melee character can't reach), trick shots are hellishly hard - seriously, who here has taken ranged disarm... Of course, there is always praying for a 20 :D
spyderfreek 06-29-07, 10:03 AM	I must admit I pencil whipped my current archer when my ranger/holy lib had an unfortunate encounter with the deck of many things (not to be played with), so I didn't have to go through the growing pains of building the character. I wish I would have used Ranger 4/fighter 2 instead of fighter 6, but with a few more levels I can get Ranged Weapon Spec. When all is said and done, with the bow I presently have, I will be doing 1d8 + 9 +2d6(holy) five times per round, with the attack bonuses I think I am at +30 something (character is at home and I am at work). 3 attacks at full AB puts me in league with the power attacking barb. I am in a very fickle group, and if I was not doing my job... I would hear it. (As the Monk does ... repeatedly) I have a tendancy to play melee charaters like football linebackers, attack first, kill, loot then ask questions. I have enjoyed the ranged assault because it makes you think more. Where am I most needed? Cleric/Mage need help? Or does the Rogue need a hand? With a melee guy in the heat of the moment, roleplaying wise, I wouldn't expect him to make detailed decisions from inside a huge battle. But standing on the skirts of it, I can pick and choose more carefully when and where I strike. It has been said that versatility is the key to archers, and I whole heartedly agree. Earlier I said: Iowa must have a different version of DnD than the rest of the gaming community. Since when do you need to do thousands of points of damage by yo[u]rself? If I wanted a solo game I'd play NWN2 or Diablo. MY "measly" 50-60 points of damage is right on par with the rest of the group. I am quite happy where I am. I meant that in this character optimzed version of the game, damge is more important than the story. I firmly believe that is wrong. I would rather fight a long memorable battle, than a quick on or two hit kill. When we fought Kerzit, I left out a couple of unimportant-to-the-point details, but we all got into the battle. No one ran up and instant killed the beastie. Our Mage dim anchored it, the monk provided flank for the rogue so she could sneak attack it, the cleric summond an elemental, I peppered it with arrows, and the barb charged in to take the tank position. The point is we were a team, each contributing a small (or large) part to the battle. Someone who can do "thousands" of damage is just a "Stumpf-player" (inside joke from my guys). A "Stumpf" is the guy who wants to cast spells, sneak attack, heal, tank, deal all the damage, be the party face, all while under the guise of wise party leader. We put up with "Stumpf" for years before finding a group that worked as a team. My Archer is apart of that team. I will concede on another point, Archer should not be the front line fighter of the group. SMall groups who only have room for Tank, Mage, Healer, & Sneak do no need a dedicated Archer, but I don't think Archers are as bad as people put forward. We are presently in a dungeon crawl, granted i don't get major long distance shots, but with IPS I can fire into combat and hit what I am aiming at with no cover bonus. With OotBI 2, I will be able to fire in melee without fear of AoO (and there have been a lot of large creatures this would matter with). I can stand at one exit to a room, pepper it with arrows and hopefully prevent any escapes while also watching for more trouble. NOTE: If the "Stumpf" ever reads this, I mean no disrespect, but take to heart what you read. This is why you cannot hold a group together.
Feeble_Kobold_Wizard 06-29-07, 03:35 PM	I rather think this is an apples and oranges comparison. there are many situation where one is better than the other and verse vice.(yes I did that on purpose) I say it all depends on the player and the build. A pure fighter/barb may be a better damage dealer but out of combat a archer build will generally have a better skill set via ranger/scout/or rogue levels (I wouldn't include a build w/o SA bonuses) and therefore generally be better out of combat. Ultimately this is a flame war in sheep's clothing and the winner is simply the person with the better build at the moment no? All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. -Nietzschze-
deviknyte 06-30-07, 08:29 AM	I beg to differ on that. What if you're not looking for skill points? What if you want to be a combat junkie with your ranged character? "I get up, I shoot things." "Is that all you do?" "I repeat..." And as per sneak attack, to be pointed out again not passed 30feet.