Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SoulStorm 05-04-06, 03:58 PM	I was contemplating making a SoulBow around the same time the PHII info. was released. Seems like a cool class, so I thought I'd see what I could come up with. Then I saw the feat list in the PHII. I already perceived an ever widening gap between archery and melee with each new supplement released but the PHII feats seemed like a slap in the face to ranged specialists. When 3rd edition was released archery was balanced vs. melee because archers didn't have to move to target their opponents, thus allowing them to full attack far more often than melee combatants. Sure, melee had their whirlwinds, cleaves and attacks of opportunity but it sort of balanced out. The melee combatants probably still did more average damage each round but they were taking a lot more too-seems fair. Now we have feats like Karmic Strike that make attacks of opportunity common, pounce and pounce-like abilities that allow melee combatants to get full attacks even if they have to move and weapon style feats that allow a chance to daze, nauseate or do other nasty things to their opponents. Where does all this leave the archer? I'm posting this question here because you guys are the experts of optimization. I think a good litmus test would be to compare well made archer and melee characters and see what happens. 20th level, 32 pt. buy, no magic items or spells. Just classes, prestige classes and feats. No more than 4 classes for each. I want to avoid the theoretical monstrosities that a good dm would never allow. Can the archer compete and I'm just missing something or am I right? Here is an example melee specialist to get the ball rolling as promised. I'm sure others can come up w/ melee builds that can do much more damage but I like the combination of damage and survivability this build offers. Human (Binder 15, Fighter 4, Exotic Weapon Master 1) Strength: 22 (base 17 + 5 at 20th level) Dexterity: 14 Constitution: 14 Intelligence: 14 Wisdom: 8 Charisma 9 1 Fighter- Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) 2 Fighter- Dodge 3 Fighter- Combat Reflexes 4 Fighter- Great Cleave 5 Binder- 6 Binder- E.W. P. (Bastard Sword) 7 Binder - 8 Binder - Improved Binding 9 Exotic Weapon Master (Uncanny Blow) – Combat Expertise 10 Binder - 11 Binder - 12 Binder - Karmic Strike 13 Binder - 14 Binder - 15 Binder - Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword) 16 Binder - Ignore Special Requirements 17 Binder - 18 Binder - Improved Critical (Bastard Sword) 19 Binder - 20 Binder – Vestiges typically bound: Buer, Chupoclops and Halphax. Vestige abilities of note: Fast Healing 3 Aura of Despair- All opponents within 10’ take a –2 penalty on attack + damage rolls, among other things. Ethereal Watcher- Become ethereal indefinitely as move action, awesome when combined w/ fast healing. Ghost Touch Pounce- awesome ability for a melee specialist-we all know how it works. Damage Reduction (10/adamantine)- combined w/ the other abilities you have a character who is very resistant to conventional damage. BAB = 16, +6 (str), +3 (pact augmentation), + 1 (weapon focus), +1 (masterwork bastard sword) 27/22/17/12 + cleaves and up to 3 more attacks each round from Karmic Strike or other attack of opportunity. Damage 1d10 + 14 w/out any magic items. Add in strength + dexterity items and it starts getting ugly.
The_Monkey_King 05-04-06, 04:40 PM	So if I read this right (and I'm no master optimizer, by far) at 20th level you could have this: Rogue 5/fighter 15 BAB 18/13/7/2 Stats of Note: Dex 30 (Gloves of Dexterity +6, 2 points from manuals or whatever) Feats of note: Point Blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot, Crossbow Sniper, Weapon Focus, Weapon Sepcialization, Greater Focus, Greater Specialization Items: Gloves of Dexterity +6, Light Crossbow +5, Holy w/2 elements, A supply of various Crossbow bolts +1 w/2 other elements, for added cheese, make some of them brilliant energy and some ghost touch. Greater Bracers of Archery, Some method of being greater Invisibilitied. Some method of being Hasted. All of which leads up to 36/36/36/31/26/21 All of which do 1d8 + 4d6 + 3d6 + 2d6 + 15(roughly 51points per hit) to anything within 60 feet) All without being hit, all without moving anywhere, Many of which will ignore armor, and probably more I haven't thought of. It wouldn't be a particularly lucky round to do 306 points of damage to a living target whose alignment was in the wrong column. Its possible a straight up melee type could top that damage without crits. Seems unlikely though, and certainly not without taking a ton of damage and definitely not with the flexibility. Please correct any rules or math problems. Edit: I told you I was a bad optimizer, I didn't have specialization or focus, so I added those in.
Zappa 05-04-06, 04:48 PM	Reserved for archer build
Caelic 05-04-06, 04:55 PM	What's the benchmark here? Doing more damage? A "Who'od Win?" scenario? Who can deal with more opponents? An archer's greatest strength lies in the ability to deal damage without taking it in turn. The Frenzied Berzerker may be able to do far more damage, but find himself absolutely helpless against a mobile archer who can stay away from him while filling him with arrows.
solbergb 05-04-06, 05:42 PM	Yeah. With respect to the title of the thread, the answer is "yes" at least for volley archers. The ability to make a full attack all the time is not to be underestimated, even if you do a bit less per attack. Archers are generally more consistent damage dealers than any class except perhaps warmage (and which is better is situational, depending on outside buffs like bardsong, the nature and number of the opposition, the range and the difficulty or ease of pinpointing the enemy based on the class capabilities). Sniper-style archers are harder to build but they can do some "rogue-like" things that fighters can't match (in particular...shoot then move+hide, repeat until opponent who can't beat your hide check is dead).
SoulStorm 05-04-06, 09:34 PM	So if I read this right (and I'm no master optimizer, by far) at 20th level you could have this: Rogue 5/fighter 15 BAB 18/13/7/2 Stats of Note: Dex 30 (Gloves of Dexterity +6, 2 points from manuals or whatever) Feats of note: Point Blank shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot, Crossbow Sniper, Weapon Focus, Weapon Sepcialization, Greater Focus, Greater Specialization Items: Gloves of Dexterity +6, Light Crossbow +5, Holy w/2 elements, A supply of various Crossbow bolts +1 w/2 other elements, for added cheese, make some of them brilliant energy and some ghost touch. Greater Bracers of Archery, Some method of being greater Invisibilitied. Some method of being Hasted. All of which leads up to 36/36/36/31/26/21 All of which do 1d8 + 4d6 + 3d6 + 2d6 + 15(roughly 51points per hit) to anything within 60 feet) All without being hit, all without moving anywhere, Many of which will ignore armor, and probably more I haven't thought of. It wouldn't be a particularly lucky round to do 306 points of damage to a living target whose alignment was in the wrong column. Its possible a straight up melee type could top that damage without crits. Seems unlikely though, and certainly not without taking a ton of damage and definitely not with the flexibility. Please correct any rules or math problems. Edit: I told you I was a bad optimizer, I didn't have specialization or focus, so I added those in. You were relatively conservative, but builds should be sans magic items or spells. Otherwise, we're going to start seeing crazy builds that are apt to be disallowed in a real campaign. Also, magic adds too many variables which unnecessarily muddy comparisions. I should add that mighty bows are ok though. Your sneak attack damage is also highly situational. You'll mostly likely catch a couple of opponents flat-footed the 1st round but after that it's a toss up. This is of course assuming they can be crit. Hmm, we should probably leave situational damage (such as sneak attacks) out of the equation as well. Also, the archer may start from range but opponents do have this nasty habit of closing to melee. Archers aren't completely safe from taking damage. Definitely more safe than the melee specialist though, I grant you. I'll add a melee build when I get a chance so we can have something to compare the archer builds too.
SoulStorm 05-04-06, 09:42 PM	What's the benchmark here? Doing more damage? A "Who'od Win?" scenario? Who can deal with more opponents? An archer's greatest strength lies in the ability to deal damage without taking it in turn. The Frenzied Berzerker may be able to do far more damage, but find himself absolutely helpless against a mobile archer who can stay away from him while filling him with arrows. I think any or all of those scenarios are worth looking at. I know actual combat has a lot of variables we'll never be able to perfectly address but with all of us being honest about actual gaming experiences and good examples posted we can start getting a pretty good idea of what each is capable of doing.
ninjarabbit 05-04-06, 09:59 PM	There's no one answer here because there's so many differnet archer types and melee types
Karm Hundredfists 05-04-06, 10:16 PM	How cheesy are we? A cleric archer with persistent divine favor owns an optimized fighter. I fail to see how archery is underpowered in fact... Unless you compare it to a caster's potential for damage. Besides, it's not a damage contest... unless you post it on the damage contest thread. Not to mention a ranged attacker with dimension door or teleport will consistently evade/outdamage a strictly melee character (other than a monk or a mounted paladin, who could keep up with them). The question has no answer. There are two niches in the optimized party for a reason.
catharz 05-04-06, 10:16 PM	There's no one answer here because there's so many differnet archer types and melee types The rabbit speaks the truth! Anyway, making a comparison without spells or magic items is a bit artificial, unless your DM actually doesn't allow spells or magic items. For example, a decent archer build is elf cleric 20. Without spells or magic items, though, you've got nothing. Similarly, without spells or magic items a 'soulbow' or 'arcane archer' is going to look really good. In reality, they suck. In a fundamental way, I think the best no-items archer you'll find is a human ranger 10/Stalker of Kharash 2/Foe hunter 8 [MotW] using an elven bow, possibly with levels of whatever the class is that grants archery power attack. That's because Favored Enemy (evil) is one of the few ways you'll be getting respectable damage, and your Foe hunter DR is one of the few ways you'll get respectable defense..
IYIysterious 05-05-06, 12:27 AM	ksbsnowowl has an awesome combat Archer if you get a chance to check it out. Combat Reflexes and AoO from 10 ft. It pops out up to 18 arrows a round... 11 single target... 7 AoO. He's also got quite the nasty lil Sniper build as well. I fail to see why archers aren't ='s. Yeah... They might be hurting slightly, but with Peerless Archer, OotBI, and other such PrCs... Archers are hanging in there... And thats only if your DM doesn't like the oh so uber Cleric 20 Archers.
Subedei 05-05-06, 12:35 AM	It also rather depends on the campaign. If your DM likes to start everything at 60' then you may very well be at a disadvantage. If you frequently find yourself spotting enemies at 500-1,000'+ out then just about everyone is going to want some archery ability.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 01:15 AM	How cheesy are we? A cleric archer with persistent divine favor owns an optimized fighter. I fail to see how archery is underpowered in fact... Unless you compare it to a caster's potential for damage. Besides, it's not a damage contest... unless you post it on the damage contest thread. Not to mention a ranged attacker with dimension door or teleport will consistently evade/outdamage a strictly melee character (other than a monk or a mounted paladin, who could keep up with them). The question has no answer. There are two niches in the optimized party for a reason. No spells, we already know that spellcasters and gish builds dominate everything. I'm talking melee vs. archer. Use any class, prestige class, or feat except for those using conditional damage such as sneak attack. I think I've said this 3 times now.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 01:24 AM	Anyway, making a comparison without spells or magic items is a bit artificial, unless your DM actually doesn't allow spells or magic items. For example, a decent archer build is elf cleric 20. Without spells or magic items, though, you've got nothing. Yes, it's artificial but it's the best way I know to establish a baseline. Not everyone wants to play a spellcaster. I'd like to see how a strong archer build compares to a strong melee build w/out all the spellcasting junk thrown in. If melee and archery are similarly effective then they should compare favorably w/ or w/out spells and magic items.
X-Codes 05-05-06, 01:38 AM	Elf Bard 16/Paladin 4 S 10, D 16, C 12, I 14, W 10, Ch 16 Feats: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Manyshot, Devoted Performer, Initiate of Milil, Words of Creation Thanks to Harmonize from RoS, Bardic Music is a move action. Therefore, first turn you hit Haste first and Inspire Courage for +9 (with Inspirational Boost), then Manyshot next turn at +22 for 4d8+40 damage without magic and then back off 60'. If you aren't inside Manyshot range, then you can make a full attack at +27/+27/+27/+22/+17/+12 with each hit dealing 1d8+9. With magic you can add about 8 to hit and about 3d6+8 to damage (on each arrow) without trying, and all of it goes through on critical hit immune enemies. You also have a few uses of Dimension Door in case you need to beat a hasty retreat.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 01:45 AM	ksbsnowowl has an awesome combat Archer if you get a chance to check it out. Combat Reflexes and AoO from 10 ft. It pops out up to 18 arrows a round... 11 single target... 7 AoO. He's also got quite the nasty lil Sniper build as well. I fail to see why archers aren't ='s. Yeah... They might be hurting slightly, but with Peerless Archer, OotBI, and other such PrCs... Archers are hanging in there... And thats only if your DM doesn't like the oh so uber Cleric 20 Archers. I've seen his builds. The one you're referring to uses 3.0 haste. I'll admit the peerless archer is sweet, especially w/ threaten but even w/ the peerless archer added in I'm still not convinced. It also seems like 90% (minus the casters) of the builds on this board are melee oriented. I may be a bit off but I don't think by much if I am. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone?
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 01:54 AM	It also rather depends on the campaign. If your DM likes to start everything at 60' then you may very well be at a disadvantage. If you frequently find yourself spotting enemies at 500-1,000'+ out then just about everyone is going to want some archery ability. This is a good point. It's seldom that our group spots enemies at extreme range. Our combats usually start at 60' give or take.
X-Codes 05-05-06, 02:06 AM	It also seems like 90% (minus the casters) of the builds on this board are melee oriented. I may be a bit off but I don't think by much if I am. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone? Well, most of the characters I see want to be gishes. Whats the primary gish class? Spellsword, not to mention that Strength is a lot easier to boost than Dexterity.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 02:16 AM	Well, most of the characters I see want to be gishes. Whats the primary gish class? Spellsword, not to mention that Strength is a lot easier to boost than Dexterity. I agree about the gish thing. Let's face it, spellcasting trumps all. That's why I wanted to leave spellcasting out of this thread.
Subedei 05-05-06, 03:13 AM	This is a good point. It's seldom that our group spots enemies at extreme range. Our combats usually start at 60' give or take. I'm not trying to criticize your DM or anything but if you think about it, isn't it a bit odd that you wouldn't see most things until around 60'? Doubly so if the thing(s) aren't trying to hide themselves and aren't necessarily aware of you. In many environments (such as flatish plains or desert, low hills depending on composition) you should be able to see a human sized creature miles away with entirely average eyesight and if you're both walking towards each other you'll have a lot of time to do it. We do a lot of outdoor fighting so I suppose my views on this subject may be a bit skewed compared to the norm. Still, caves are pretty quiet and they echo, it's going to be pretty easy to hear just about anything unstealthy and medium size in a cave systems long before you come upon whatever section it happens to be in.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 04:28 AM	I'm not trying to criticize your DM or anything but if you think about it, isn't it a bit odd that you wouldn't see most things until around 60'? Doubly so if the thing(s) aren't trying to hide themselves and aren't necessarily aware of you. In many environments (such as flatish plains or desert, low hills depending on composition) you should be able to see a human sized creature miles away with entirely average eyesight and if you're both walking towards each other you'll have a lot of time to do it. We do a lot of outdoor fighting so I suppose my views on this subject may be a bit skewed compared to the norm. Still, caves are pretty quiet and they echo, it's going to be pretty easy to hear just about anything unstealthy and medium size in a cave systems long before you come upon whatever section it happens to be in. Caves and other underground or indoor encounters aren't usually accomodating to long ranged combat and outdoor encounters usually involve something trying to catch us unaware, probably too often so I would agree. Maybe 1 in 15 or 20 encounters starts at long range and even that number is probably conservative.
Anor 05-05-06, 05:00 AM	I would dare to say that a well-built archer can out-power any melee character in most cases, except where the archer cant be mobile and have free room. The prestige class Order of the Bow Initiate gives Close Combat Shot, so using the bow in a threatened square doesnt provoke attack of opportunity. So shoot away in melee too. Regarding armor etc he will be lacking quite a bit to the melee guy (who can carry a shield and wear heavy armor). A quickfooted Frenzied Berserker with light armor is probably the archers worst melee enemy. He is quick and he is fierce in melee.
Lokathor 05-05-06, 05:47 AM	spotting targets from miles off? a mile i can see... but many? Anyways, as to AC of the Archer, if he pumps up the Dex (34 stat, +12 mod) and gets a Mighril Chainshirt with the magic ability that increases the max dex by 2 (forget the name) his AC will be just fine compared to a heavy armor setup. Heavy armor just means you can slouch on Dex, but the archer never would have in the first place.
Arem_K 05-05-06, 08:14 AM	Archery is great when combined with the ability to outmove your opponents. Get a fast mount, or even better a flying mount, and many things will never be able to hit you. Archery is also great if coupled with a battlefield control character, like a mage who uses webs etc.
maltravois 05-05-06, 08:14 AM	In many environments (such as flatish plains or desert, low hills depending on composition) you should be able to see a human sized creature miles away with entirely average eyesight and if you're both walking towards each other you'll have a lot of time to do it. In a medium forest, this distance is 2d8×10 feet, and in a dense forest it is 2d6×10 feet. In a swamp, this distance is 2d8×10 feet. In gentle hills, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 2d10×10 feet. In rugged hills, this distance is 2d6×10 feet. As a guideline, the maximum distance in mountain terrain at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 4d10×10 feet. In general, the maximum distance in desert terrain at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6×20 feet; In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6×40 feet, although the specifics of your map may restrict line of sight. Sooo.... Max spotting distance anywhere is 1440 ft, max in forest is 120ft. Well under miles. ;)
Prominence 05-05-06, 08:23 AM	I agree about the gish thing. Let's face it, spellcasting trumps all. That's why I wanted to leave spellcasting out of this thread I don't see why people always remove spellcasting from their ranger builds. Even in kbsnowowl's builds, he basically says 'ranger is for wand of hunter's mercy'. Let's take a look at the usual Ranger of Mystra. Maybe Ranger 10 / Harper Paragon 10 (or ranger 11 / Stalker of Karash 4 / Peerless Archer 5) -You get fourth level spells from the ranger or wizard class. -You get Foebane, which is Holy Sword without an energy type. -Deeper Darkvision, so you don't have to worry about magic darkness -ArrowStorm, equivalent to Hail of Arrows from 8th level Arcane Archer -Find the Gap, essentially all your arrows are touch attacks -Various swift action archery enhancements. After Spell Compendium, I'd be hard pressed to give up my casting even as a ranger. spotting targets from miles off? a mile i can see... but many? If you're on flat ground? all of them that don't have cover from mobs of other people. If you're in something like a tower (or flying) then you could probably hail death down on them.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 11:43 AM	I don't see why people always remove spellcasting from their ranger builds. Even in kbsnowowl's builds, he basically says 'ranger is for wand of hunter's mercy'. I think always is a bit of an extreme statement but I can at least give you my perception of this phenomena. Some people like a sense of purity from their characters. They want to play a character that isn't reliant on external forces or phenomena. They want a character who just does what it does without having to cast a spell or pull out a wand. It's hard to feel like your character is really an archer-for example-if you have to cast 2 spells and wave a wand around your head three times to pull off your schtick. Think Nike, "Just Do It." It's also why so many people don't like playing past levels 12-15. After awhile characters become more reliant on magic items and spells than their own abilities. I've been playing the game off and on for 20 years give or take and as far as I can recall, what suffocated every campaign in the end was magic. Either the characters had too many magic items, the spellcasters got too powerful or both. I know this is really off-topic but the game would be better off if the characters inherent abilities were better, spells were less powerful, and magic items were more rare and less powerful. That's also why I like classes like the Binder and Warlock. They have cool abilities but they never get so powerful that they drown the campaign. However, none of that has anything to do with why I would like any sample builds created to be sans magic items and spells.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 12:09 PM	Archery is great when combined with the ability to outmove your opponents. Get a fast mount, or even better a flying mount, and many things will never be able to hit you. Archery is also great if coupled with a battlefield control character, like a mage who uses webs etc. I've never stated that archers can't be useful, effective or even save the day on occasion. That's not my point. My point is this, the characters that make your jaw drop, that pull off the godly actions in combat, the ones that just stand out as a cut above. Low to mid level, the characters who do these things are the melee machines. After the mid levels the spellcasters take over until the game becomes final fantasy and drowns in a pool of arcane, psionic and divine energy. My other point is that new options for melee characters (and casters) are being introduced into the game much more quickly than they are being introduced for archers. Let's just use feats as an example. I'll bet it's possible to design at least 10 different highly viable melee characters without ever using the same feat twice. Trying doing the same thing with archery and I bet you don't get very far. Because of this, it's much easier to design a unique and effective melee character than a unique and effective archer. The same holds true for prestige classes. I'm truly surprised no one else seems to see this or thinks it's a problem.
Manus 05-05-06, 12:11 PM	I think that, on average, WotC comes out with more new material for melee builds than missile builds, simply because more people tend to be hack n slashers than shoot n looters. So if there is a gap, it is going to tend to grow. If you discount all magical items/spells/etc, melee builds are likely going to do more damage than missile just because the feats and prcs lists have more melee material to choose from. However, all it takes is one broken rule on either side of that equation to tip the balance. It wasn't so long ago that enhancement bonuses for bows and for ammunition stacked with each other. That got fixed though. The 3.0 Order of the Bow Initiate could use zen archery to stack his dex and wisdom bonuses for shooting. That got fixed though. Magic items can do the same thing. All it takes is a single unbalanced item to render the entire 'which is more powerful' discussion moot. If you're an archer and you're still using a 'speed' bow instead of a 'splitting' bow, you're missing out. Saying there is a gap between WotC support for melee and archer is like pointing out the gap between support for sorcerers and psionics. As long as there is more of one out there, WotC will write more material for the majority. More written material tends to widen the power gap. But that gap can always be bridged by a single feat, a single prc, a single magic item, etc. But in general there is nothing wrong with NOT being the most powerful pc in the world. Some days I feel like playing somebody who likes to keep his distance from the battle. Some days I like to play somebody who crushes the skulls of his enemies. Forget which is more powerful, or gets more written support from WotC, and play what you feel.
Manus 05-05-06, 12:17 PM	Because of this, it's much easier to design a unique and effective melee character than a unique and effective archer. The same holds true for prestige classes. I'm truly surprised no one else seems to see this or thinks it's a problem. Remember, your character is not a bunch of numbers on a sheet. I can design a level 3 commoner who is, in your words, unique and effective, because I can roleplay him as a unique character. It doesn't matter what feats or prcs you use. You and I can have the exact same numbers/feats/skills/classes/etc on our character sheets, and I guarantee that I will still play a unique and effective character who responds to adversity and challenge in a different manner than your character with identical stats.
Feeb 05-05-06, 12:30 PM	I agree about the gish thing. Let's face it, spellcasting trumps all. That's why I wanted to leave spellcasting out of this thread. You openned the door when your melee example consisted of a gish using Su via levels in binder. Where is the sense of purity from their characters. They want to play a character that isn't reliant on external forces or phenomena. in your Human (Binder 15, Fighter 4, Exotic Weapon Master 1) ? I'm not trying to flame, it just feels like you are being a bit contradictory with your example of melee and your limitations on a gish build (also, the ruling out "conditional" damage is very iffy in my opinion, seems like doing so is a justification for "raising the bar") edit: in repsonse to the above quote being out of context Some people like a sense of purity from their characters. They want to play a character that isn't reliant on external forces or phenomena. They want a character who just does what it does without having to cast a spell or pull out a wand. It's hard to feel like your character is really an archer-for example-if you have to cast 2 spells and wave a wand around your head three times to pull off your schtick. Think Nike, "Just Do It." You're introducing a melee build which relies on a class who's hallmark is Su abilities and spell-like effects. How does this differ from using a wand or casting a spell? It's still a magic based effect not coming from some feat. You say you want us to compare characters based on the following: I think a good litmus test would be to compare well made archer and melee characters and see what happens. 20th level, 32 pt. buy, no magic items or spells. Just classes, prestige classes and feats. No more than 4 classes for each. I want to avoid the theoretical monstrosities that a good dm would never allow. But you include classes from a class that basically has persistified spells as a class ability :confused: I don't see how the first quote was out of context at all, but maybe that's just a hallmark of my bad nature.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 12:33 PM	I think that, on average, WotC comes out with more new material for melee builds than missile builds, simply because more people tend to be hack n slashers than shoot n looters. So if there is a gap, it is going to tend to grow. If you discount all magical items/spells/etc, melee builds are likely going to do more damage than missile just because the feats and prcs lists have more melee material to choose from. However, all it takes is one broken rule on either side of that equation to tip the balance. It wasn't so long ago that enhancement bonuses for bows and for ammunition stacked with each other. That got fixed though. The 3.0 Order of the Bow Initiate could use zen archery to stack his dex and wisdom bonuses for shooting. That got fixed though. Magic items can do the same thing. All it takes is a single unbalanced item to render the entire 'which is more powerful' discussion moot. If you're an archer and you're still using a 'speed' bow instead of a 'splitting' bow, you're missing out. Saying there is a gap between WotC support for melee and archer is like pointing out the gap between support for sorcerers and psionics. As long as there is more of one out there, WotC will write more material for the majority. More written material tends to widen the power gap. But that gap can always be bridged by a single feat, a single prc, a single magic item, etc. But in general there is nothing wrong with NOT being the most powerful pc in the world. Some days I feel like playing somebody who likes to keep his distance from the battle. Some days I like to play somebody who crushes the skulls of his enemies. Forget which is more powerful, or gets more written support from WotC, and play what you feel. That's a beautiful sentiment until you realize that you can't play what you feel because WOTC hasn't given you the material that's representative of how you feel. As I said, I've been around a long time, there isn't much I haven't seen already. After awhile you want something new and unique. Right now, if I want new or unique, I'm stuck playing a melee character or some kind of a caster. The game also isn't very fun when by the 3rd round the casters have cooked everything except for what the melee characters have ground into a fine paste. I'm also pretty sure that if archery was better supported more people would play archers. Also for the record, the splitting enchantment should have never been published in my opinion. Definitely does not pass the nice but not necessary test.
IYIysterious 05-05-06, 12:50 PM	Just an idea... But why not try to create some balanced ideas for an archer and play it that way. Simply get it approved by a DM in advance. Keep it balanced and it should be no trouble to have it approved. Also... Get someone to play Battlefield control and it'll be a blast :D Creativity could still be a fun thing to try... rather than utilizing all of the existing material. The only problem is the fact that Archers get that first strike chance... and therefor should never have the same power as a melee character that must close this distance. It seems that to play a good archer, it's more about mobility and little shots and just standin there wailing on things anyway. If you want to do massive dmg and hit like a melee, then you should play a melee character. Bows just don't have the same power behind them. It makes perfect sense when ya thing about it anyway
FabulousRex 05-05-06, 01:54 PM	Aside from the Bard-Archer, which is one of the best out there, IMO, the Scout can also make a powerful archer with it's many abilities. Hide in Plain Sight combined with Greater Many Shot and alot of inherent mobility that can't be slowed down (for the most part) means that a well-built Scout can tear apart most enounters if he knows what he's doing. Scout20 Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Greater Many Shot, Improved Precise Shot, WF Shortbow, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Improved Diversion, Shot on the Run Simple non-human feat list. Sure, you don't get your best tricks until lvl12, but you still can do quite well against most opponents until then. Use a Splitting bow and pump out 6 shots as a standard action to 6 different targets, all packing Skirmish damage. Or 6 shots all at one target, all packing Skirmish damage. If your target is crit-immune, you can back off quickly and put out a full-attack action at long range. It's unlikely anything will catch you once you get your -permenant- Freedom of Movement. The blindsight also helps with invisible opponents. Even totally gimped with no magic items, you can still put out some very good damage, have alot of powerful abilities, and be a devestating shoot-n-scoot archer.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 02:42 PM	Remember, your character is not a bunch of numbers on a sheet. I can design a level 3 commoner who is, in your words, unique and effective, because I can roleplay him as a unique character. It doesn't matter what feats or prcs you use. You and I can have the exact same numbers/feats/skills/classes/etc on our character sheets, and I guarantee that I will still play a unique and effective character who responds to adversity and challenge in a different manner than your character with identical stats. It's wonderful to wax philosophically, it gives people that warm tingly feeling but it doesn't change reality. D&D consists of 2 components-role-playing and combat. Any given group may have more or less of each component but they all have those two things. The DM and the players handle the role-playing side of the game and WOTC handles the combat side. It's the only side they're responsible for and I think they have plenty of room for improvement. Does this mean I think the game is bad? Not at all, but I'm not going to pretend it's perfect either.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 02:49 PM	You openned the door when your melee example consisted of a gish using Su via levels in binder. Where is the in your Human (Binder 15, Fighter 4, Exotic Weapon Master 1) ? I'm not trying to flame, it just feels like you are being a bit contradictory with your example of melee and your limitations on a gish build (also, the ruling out "conditional" damage is very iffy in my opinion, seems like doing so is a justification for "raising the bar") First of all, I made that character completely within the guidelines I established in my 1st post. Secondly, you quoted me out of context. That's not cool and it makes you look bad.
Manus 05-05-06, 02:53 PM	Also for the record, the splitting enchantment should have never been published in my opinion. Definitely does not pass the nice but not necessary test. No argument there. Some ideas to consider though: If you're depressed because the casters are toasting everything... well, yes they do. But that really has nothing to do with your melee vs missile angst. Check with the melee guys, and they probably think the same thing about casters. If your concern is that the melee guys outdamage the snot out of you, consider some houserules to combat that. For instance, A single houserule allowing bonus damage equal to your dex mod on ranged attacks brings you up on par with melee types. If your DM doesn't want to houserule, look into one of the composite bows out there that automatically matches its pull to your strength. Though this involves inflating two stats (dex and str) instead of one, it is a nice way of bringing your damage back on par to the longsword. If your concern is that there is a lack of 'flavor' to missile builds. Less feats, less prestige classes, etc. Well, you're right, but it isn't entirely wotc's fault. There are limitless ways of shaping a solid weight or something sharp to hit your enemy. There just aren't as many ways of doing it from 100 feet away. While there are options (feats and prcs) for whips, chains, swords, axes, maces, hammers, polearms, weapon and shield fighting, two weapon fighting, single weapon fighting, single weapon in two hands fighting, etc, the options for ranged weapons seem limited to bows, crossbows, and throwing things. So it's not all wotc's fault, it's a limit with the medium. However, just because wotc doesn't publish it, doesn't mean you can't do it. If your DM is up for it, work with him on some new material to broaden the horizons. Make a prestige class which gets bonuses to reload crossbows faster for an increasing size of crossbows, for a feel similar to that of the old west, but with a heavy xbow. Make a prestige class specializing in using 2 xbows at once. Expand on the ranged sunder feat to make a chain of 'improved ranged sunder' or 'greater ranged sunder' or make a hammer throwing prestige class which does a lot of sundering. Make your own longbow prc that when paired with multiple people in the same prc, their volleys get some kind of nasty boost. Introduce a new weapon with its own prestige class or feats, like the atlatl. These are options I thought up in 5 minutes while at work. Does it bite that Wotc doesn't print the material you want? Yes. But that shouldn't stop you.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 03:03 PM	Just an idea... But why not try to create some balanced ideas for an archer and play it that way. Simply get it approved by a DM in advance. Keep it balanced and it should be no trouble to have it approved. Also... Get someone to play Battlefield control and it'll be a blast :D Creativity could still be a fun thing to try... rather than utilizing all of the existing material. The only problem is the fact that Archers get that first strike chance... and therefor should never have the same power as a melee character that must close this distance. It seems that to play a good archer, it's more about mobility and little shots and just standin there wailing on things anyway. If you want to do massive dmg and hit like a melee, then you should play a melee character. Bows just don't have the same power behind them. It makes perfect sense when ya thing about it anyway Not every campaign allows home brew material and balance is always is the eye of the beholder. I played in some games way back in 1st edition where we used a lot of homebrew stuff. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it created problems. Generally there's already enough debate about game balance from the official materials-I'm not interested in adding more fuel to the fire. I'd just like to enjoy the game for what it is w/out having to tweak everything. Considering all the money I've spend on this game, I think it's a reasonable request. I'm also not expecting an archer to be as effective. Honestly, what I want is more options. Something that even vaguely resembles parity where options are concerned would be nice.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 03:23 PM	No argument there. Some ideas to consider though: If you're depressed because the casters are toasting everything... well, yes they do. But that really has nothing to do with your melee vs missile angst. Check with the melee guys, and they probably think the same thing about casters. If your concern is that the melee guys outdamage the snot out of you, consider some houserules to combat that. For instance, A single houserule allowing bonus damage equal to your dex mod on ranged attacks brings you up on par with melee types. If your DM doesn't want to houserule, look into one of the composite bows out there that automatically matches its pull to your strength. Though this involves inflating two stats (dex and str) instead of one, it is a nice way of bringing your damage back on par to the longsword. If your concern is that there is a lack of 'flavor' to missile builds. Less feats, less prestige classes, etc. Well, you're right, but it isn't entirely wotc's fault. There are limitless ways of shaping a solid weight or something sharp to hit your enemy. There just aren't as many ways of doing it from 100 feet away. While there are options (feats and prcs) for whips, chains, swords, axes, maces, hammers, polearms, weapon and shield fighting, two weapon fighting, single weapon fighting, single weapon in two hands fighting, etc, the options for ranged weapons seem limited to bows, crossbows, and throwing things. So it's not all wotc's fault, it's a limit with the medium. However, just because wotc doesn't publish it, doesn't mean you can't do it. If your DM is up for it, work with him on some new material to broaden the horizons. Make a prestige class which gets bonuses to reload crossbows faster for an increasing size of crossbows, for a feel similar to that of the old west, but with a heavy xbow. Make a prestige class specializing in using 2 xbows at once. Expand on the ranged sunder feat to make a chain of 'improved ranged sunder' or 'greater ranged sunder' or make a hammer throwing prestige class which does a lot of sundering. Make your own longbow prc that when paired with multiple people in the same prc, their volleys get some kind of nasty boost. Introduce a new weapon with its own prestige class or feats, like the atlatl. These are options I thought up in 5 minutes while at work. Does it bite that Wotc doesn't print the material you want? Yes. But that shouldn't stop you. Aside from my being depressed and full of angst this was a good post. :P Yes, casters are broken, in a not easily fixed way at that. I don't think melee is broken though. The problem isn't with what a melee character can do and the options they have, it's the lack of any kind of parity. Yes, I agree that creating feats and classes for melee types is easier than creating them for archer types. I'm equally certain that many of the people on this board could come up with a ton of well balanced feats for archers. Again, many campaigns only allow official materials. On average, it's a policy I agree with. Homebrew material often causes more problems than it solves.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 03:32 PM	Anyway, since I'm seemingly the only person here who perceives a melee/archer rift, I'm just going to assume my brain is addled and call it a day. My thanks to all...
ravenkith 05-05-06, 04:49 PM	No, there's a rift all right. The biggest problem is, you aren't taking the best possible archer (any resources) vs. the best possible fighter (any resources). The next biggest problem is the lack of love the archer has gotten from WOTC. Even after LOTR, and Legolas, the Complete Adventurer had what, 2 ranged classes in it? The most terrifying ranged character out there is the hulking hurler build that some posted that could destroy the world. But it's a build that used materials from questionable sources (i.e. outside the Core + Complete). It's a thrower. Not an archer. Why? Because the biggest weapon available to an archer is the Greatbow (1d10, 20/x3), which is roughly equivalent to a bsword or a dwarven waraxe. Do you know anyone who uses a bsword two handed? They either go TWF, Sword & Board, or they get a bigger weapon. But this is the biggest bow out there, that I know of, and it's from a questionable source. Add into this the ammunition requirements inherent in any high level build, and the ludicrousness of trying to provide good magical enhancements on weapons that shatter half the time (arrows), and you begin to realize why Archers don't get played much. Which feeds into them not getting much love. Vicious circle, right? I played an insane build in 3.0 that outdamaged the rest of the party specifically because of the stacking rules mentioned by some one else. It was great it was fun. It was stoppable by three or four relatively low level spells in the PHB. Can you say Wind Wall? How about Protection from arrows? Archers get no love.
ninjarabbit 05-05-06, 04:58 PM	Why? Because the biggest weapon available to an archer is the Greatbow (1d10, 20/x3), which is roughly equivalent to a bsword or a dwarven waraxe. Do you know anyone who uses a bsword two handed? They either go TWF, Sword & Board, or they get a bigger weapon. But this is the biggest bow out there, that I know of, and it's from a questionable source. Archers get no love. Actually i see the bastard sword or dwarven waraxe used two handed more often due to the uncanny blow ability from Exotic Weapon Master.
Arem_K 05-05-06, 05:32 PM	I've never stated that archers can't be useful, effective or even save the day on occasion. That's not my point. My point is this, the characters that make your jaw drop, that pull off the godly actions in combat, the ones that just stand out as a cut above. Low to mid level, the characters who do these things are the melee machines. After the mid levels the spellcasters take over until the game becomes final fantasy and drowns in a pool of arcane, psionic and divine energy. My other point is that new options for melee characters (and casters) are being introduced into the game much more quickly than they are being introduced for archers. Let's just use feats as an example. I'll bet it's possible to design at least 10 different highly viable melee characters without ever using the same feat twice. Trying doing the same thing with archery and I bet you don't get very far. Because of this, it's much easier to design a unique and effective melee character than a unique and effective archer. The same holds true for prestige classes. I'm truly surprised no one else seems to see this or thinks it's a problem. I'm having trouble figuring out what you are going for here. If you want to say that Melee types get more feats/weapons/classes than ranged, then you are absolutely right. Of course, this seems to be universally true. Of the top of my head, Final Fantasy Tactics gives you one bow using class and tons of different melee and caster types If you want to say that archers can not do anything jaw dropping, I beg to differ. Get a flying mount or flying some other way and shoot things. You can easily get one through the ranger animal companion, wild cohort, specialized prestige classes, or just dumping some money on it. For the most part, the spot limitations won't be an issue because with an aerial vantage point you should have a better spot than on plains. This leads us to the impressive things you can do section. You can spot and attack things from an incredible distance, many times netting a few attacks before the battle really begins. You can solo some of the more ridiculous beasts, such as the hydra, without even taking damage. You can consistently take full attacks while not taking any in return. If your thing is Manyshot, which I believe is a standard action, you can move and do it. You can ready a full attack to make sure an enemy caster does not get his spell off, hurting him and wasting his turn. You can kill the BBEG when he tries to escape. You can exploit movement hampering spell effects such as grease, web, and the wall series and the mage will never have to worry about you getting caught in his spells and the cleric does not have to dive into the middle of things to save you. What exactly are the melee guys doing that is so impressive and is making you feel inadequate?
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 06:29 PM	I'm having trouble figuring out what you are going for here. If you want to say that Melee types get more feats/weapons/classes than ranged, then you are absolutely right. Of course, this seems to be universally true. Of the top of my head, Final Fantasy Tactics gives you one bow using class and tons of different melee and caster types If you want to say that archers can not do anything jaw dropping, I beg to differ. Get a flying mount or flying some other way and shoot things. You can easily get one through the ranger animal companion, wild cohort, specialized prestige classes, or just dumping some money on it. For the most part, the spot limitations won't be an issue because with an aerial vantage point you should have a better spot than on plains. This leads us to the impressive things you can do section. You can spot and attack things from an incredible distance, many times netting a few attacks before the battle really begins. You can solo some of the more ridiculous beasts, such as the hydra, without even taking damage. You can consistently take full attacks while not taking any in return. If your thing is Manyshot, which I believe is a standard action, you can move and do it. You can ready a full attack to make sure an enemy caster does not get his spell off, hurting him and wasting his turn. You can kill the BBEG when he tries to escape. You can exploit movement hampering spell effects such as grease, web, and the wall series and the mage will never have to worry about you getting caught in his spells and the cleric does not have to dive into the middle of things to save you. What exactly are the melee guys doing that is so impressive and is making you feel inadequate? You brought me out of retirement by mentioning the best strategy/rpg ever made. You are a sly one aren't you? I hope they make a genuine sequel to Tactics some day. Yes, on the more feats, weapons, classes thing. When I think about effectiveness, I'm not just talking raw damage. I definitely think that melee should rule in the raw damage department and they do. Just a couple of examples of things melee can do that ranged attacks can't. There are melee feat chains to daze or nauseate opponents. Why doesn't the archer have a couple of feat chains to do those kinds of things? Melee characters can cleave. Why can't there be a feat that allows an arrow that drops an opponent to continue to the next opponent in-line with the opponent dropped? How many ways do melee characters have to gain attacks of opportunity now? How about archers? That's just a few feat ideas off the top off my head. Now combine all those feat options with all the prestige classes out there. In the end melee specialists have a lot more cool and interesting combat options than the archer. Why is that when opening up similar options to the Archer is so easy? As to the impressive things section of your post. Yep, sniping is kind of cool, I agree, the 5% of the time you actually get to do it. Consistently take full attacks w/out taking any in return? maybe in your group. Sometimes yes, unless there are enemy archers, whose job it is it to take you out. What about pouncers? trippers? You know what we call lone characters flying around in the sky sniping the enemy? Usually something along the lines of dead, bait, maybe crispy or some other derogatory thing like that. Spellcasters tend not to like being pelted with arrows so they either negate your ability to damage them and save you for last or try to take you out 1st, neither is particularly entertaining (well, it is but it's not in a role-playing sense). The safety factor inherent in being an archer is highly overrated. Does it exist, absolutely, but it's not all it's cracked up to be.
CygnusDarius 05-05-06, 06:44 PM	I'll sum up here a little I've done. Say we have two 12th level characters, a barbarian 6/frenzied berkserer 6, and a ranger 6/deepwood sniper 6 Act 1: Barbarian rages down a hilltop Ranger fires a volley at him and climbs up a tree Act 2: Barbarian climbs the tree Ranger fires a volley at him again Act 3: Barbarian starts hacking the tree/ Barbarian attacks the ranger Ranger fires a volley at him again/ Ranger steps back and fires a volley at him again Barbarian dies :) .
Caelic 05-05-06, 06:51 PM	On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there's no +3 melee enhancement that, for all intents and purposes, doubles your number of attacks.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 06:52 PM	I'll sum up here a little I've done. Say we have two 12th level characters, a barbarian 6/frenzied berkserer 6, and a ranger 6/deepwood sniper 6 Act 1: Barbarian rages down a hilltop Ranger fires a volley at him and climbs up a tree Act 2: Barbarian climbs the tree Ranger fires a volley at him again Act 3: Barbarian starts hacking the tree/ Barbarian attacks the ranger Ranger fires a volley at him again/ Ranger steps back and fires a volley at him again Barbarian dies :) . This was a joke, right? :confused: Can I start my scenario with the Barbarian and Ranger face to face? I think I'll open with Improved Sunder. The point being that duels such as these never prove anything.
SoulStorm 05-05-06, 07:02 PM	On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there's no +3 melee enhancement that, for all intents and purposes, doubles your number of attacks. I've already given my opinion on splitting. There aren't many things in this game more broken than that. I'd never allow it. There are some melee ones I feel the same way about. What is the one that gives you back 1/2 the hit points you do on a strike? Just goes to show that alcohol and game design don't mix.
ninjarabbit 05-05-06, 07:46 PM	This was a joke, right? :confused: Can I start my scenario with the Barbarian and Ranger face to face? I think I'll open with Improved Sunder. The point being that duels such as these never prove anything. Except no archer ranger worth his salt is going to let a barbarian (or almost anyone else) get that close to him unharmed.
Prominence 05-05-06, 07:49 PM	On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there's no +3 melee enhancement that, for all intents and purposes, doubles your number of attacks Likewise, there's no real enhancements that double your bow damage. Ahem, Valorous. Then there's metalline - a +2 enhancement that basically defeats the versatility of bow ammo. Also impossible to get an Aurorum bow, so if you get sundered you're screwed. The +1 metalline, sizing, morphic, sure striking magebane...dagger (not that it matters) can overcome any DR and increase damage. When you're pelting arrows at stuff with DR 15 / random, swords aren't shafted at all. Then there's the whole power attack feat line, which is easily more powerful than splitting by itself. Look at the Lancer if you don't believe that. Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Battle Jump, Valorous Charge, mounted combat by itself, dive attacks, etc. There's just a ton of ways to boost your melee damage in a game. In a sense, there's a Feat Quality difference, too.
Arem_K 05-05-06, 08:51 PM	You brought me out of retirement by mentioning the best strategy/rpg ever made. You are a sly one aren't you? I hope they make a genuine sequel to Tactics some day. My ways are subtle and nefarious. I also hope for a tactics sequel. Yes, on the more feats, weapons, classes thing. When I think about effectiveness, I'm not just talking raw damage. I definitely think that melee should rule in the raw damage department and they do. Just a couple of examples of things melee can do that ranged attacks can't. There are melee feat chains to daze or nauseate opponents. Why doesn't the archer have a couple of feat chains to do those kinds of things? Melee characters can cleave. Why can't there be a feat that allows an arrow that drops an opponent to continue to the next opponent in-line with the opponent dropped? How many ways do melee characters have to gain attacks of opportunity now? How about archers? That's just a few feat ideas off the top off my head. Now combine all those feat options with all the prestige classes out there. In the end melee specialists have a lot more cool and interesting combat options than the archer. Why is that when opening up similar options to the Archer is so easy? Yeah, that is a pain. But honestly, I have never played with anyone who uses the dazing attacks (don't they have pretty strigent requirements?) Cleave is not so hot, unless you are fighting the clustering low HD horde, that is really just evocation fodder anyway. I think there is an exit wound enhancement, that does what you describe. Giving archers AoO's are a problem, because we have to ask what area an archer threatens. If we threaten our entire attack range, then we have an ungodly combo when we add combat reflexes and a high Dex stat. If we threaten the five foot square next to us, then it is just completely useless. As to the impressive things section of your post. Yep, sniping is kind of cool, I agree, the 5% of the time you actually get to do it. Consistently take full attacks w/out taking any in return? maybe in your group. Sometimes yes, unless there are enemy archers, whose job it is it to take you out. What about pouncers? trippers? You know what we call lone characters flying around in the sky sniping the enemy? Usually something along the lines of dead, bait, maybe crispy or some other derogatory thing like that. Spellcasters tend not to like being pelted with arrows so they either negate your ability to damage them and save you for last or try to take you out 1st, neither is particularly entertaining (well, it is but it's not in a role-playing sense). The safety factor inherent in being an archer is highly overrated. Does it exist, absolutely, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. I am not understanding your counterexample. First you say that mobility can be negated by archers, which is true, but I thought we were arguing archery versus melee. Plus the enemy archers are going after your casters anyway, or should be. What about pouncers or trippers, if you are flying, you can't be pounced or tripped, provided you are out of range. Pouncing is usually something done by NPCs (monsters etc.). Tripping flying characters is usually shot down by DMs in my experience, even though the FAQ says it is okay, for reasons of common sense. What do you mean by the spellcasters negating you? If you mean cast a spell like protection from arrows, I would say it is a pretty fair trade if I manage to waste their round like that (remember, casters win D&D). Especially if I disrupt them the first time. Of course, we really have to ask how many casters spend a alot of time thinking about arrow defense. As to being taken out first, that's sort of the burden of being a mundane in D&D. The fighter is generally no better off. I've already given my opinion on splitting. There aren't many things in this game more broken than that. I'd never allow it. There are some melee ones I feel the same way about. What is the one that gives you back 1/2 the hit points you do on a strike? Just goes to show that alcohol and game design don't mix The only things more broken than that are Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerrors... Your monitor should be radiating my caster angst right now. Honestly I do not know how to begin to define something as broken these days. The last time I saw a debate on what is broken in D&D somebody said powerattack. It is hard to show you the advantages if you won't use the benefits we get, whether they were written by a drunk or not. This was a joke, right? Can I start my scenario with the Barbarian and Ranger face to face? I think I'll open with Improved Sunder. The point being that duels such as these never prove anything. That was a joke right? You don't seriously expect an archer to beat a melee specialist in melee range. Especially since the melee specialist is the Frenzied Berserker, which even those on the Char opt board mutter about being broken. If you want to see an archer beat an FB out close quarters, I think I can do it. If you are trying to say that using a duel as an example is just stupid, I can understand that.
SoulStorm 05-06-06, 04:40 AM	Yeah, that is a pain. But honestly, I have never played with anyone who uses the dazing attacks (don't they have pretty strigent requirements?) Cleave is not so hot, unless you are fighting the clustering low HD horde, that is really just evocation fodder anyway. I think there is an exit wound enhancement, that does what you describe. Giving archers AoO's are a problem, because we have to ask what area an archer threatens. If we threaten our entire attack range, then we have an ungodly combo when we add combat reflexes and a high Dex stat. If we threaten the five foot square next to us, then it is just completely useless. You may have never met anyone who uses certain options but at least they have them. It also doesn't mean they aren't good options. More options are never a bad thing as long as they are balanced. Same thing goes for the merits of the cleave feat. As to the threatening thing-ok one example, again, off the top of my head: Pin-down- As a swift action, choose one opponent to pin-down. Until the beginning of your next turn, you are considered to be threatening the squares surrounding that opponent's current position. The threatened squares apply only to the pinned-down opponent. I'm sure given time I could come up with more. Like I said, it's not that hard. I am not understanding your counterexample. First you say that mobility can be negated by archers, which is true, but I thought we were arguing archery versus melee. Plus the enemy archers are going after your casters anyway, or should be. What about pouncers or trippers, if you are flying, you can't be pounced or tripped, provided you are out of range. Pouncing is usually something done by NPCs (monsters etc.). Tripping flying characters is usually shot down by DMs in my experience, even though the FAQ says it is okay, for reasons of common sense. What do you mean by the spellcasters negating you? If you mean cast a spell like protection from arrows, I would say it is a pretty fair trade if I manage to waste their round like that (remember, casters win D&D). Especially if I disrupt them the first time. Of course, we really have to ask how many casters spend a alot of time thinking about arrow defense. As to being taken out first, that's sort of the burden of being a mundane in D&D. The fighter is generally no better off. The only thing I was say here is that the examples you gave don't exist in a bubble. Sometimes things work out as planned, sometimes they don't. The only things more broken than that are Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerrors... Your monitor should be radiating my caster angst right now. Basically, anything that gets spells above 6th level. I couldn't agree more. It's going to take a major overhaul of the system to fix this problem though. If you are trying to say that using a duel as an example is just stupid, I can understand that. That's exactly what I was trying to say.