Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Me, Myself, & 101 others 06-10-05, 06:36 AM	What are the plus and down sides to being a dedicated archer? The main cons I see are the bow itself. Bows are wood, and easily sundered if you're using them up close, and if you use them at a distance an enemy caster can throw up a wall, making you spend rounds relocating for a good shot. Plus, until you collect the feats needed to offset the penalties, you get attacks of opprotunity if you shoot near at hand, and an attack penalty if you fire into a melee. Are there any other downsides to using a bow I'm not covering? Is it possible to sunder with spells/effects? Other ways to cripple an archer? Other than range, I'm not seeing much in favor of the bows. Yes, you can accumulate a decent amount of damage with the right classes, but it seems the penalties far out-shine the advantages. I'm having trouble seeing why someone would decide to play Robin Hood when they could be wearing armor, have a shield, and have a sword or similiar. What's everyone's thoughts?
J_Riley 06-10-05, 08:27 AM	I liken the difference between an archer and a melee fighter as the difference between a true boxer, like Sugar Ray Leonard and a brawler like Mike Tyson. Boxers are stick and move, stick and move, stick and move. They are usually very quick, but often don't absorb heavy blows well. Their best defense is to stay mobile and stay out of reach. If you're an archer, you don't want to be in close unless YOU chose to be in close. One of the composite longbow's biggest assets is it's range increment of 110ft. The other is that you can create/buy one that allows you to apply your strength to damage. It's like a 110ft reach weapon (but doesn't allow AoO) - you can hit them but they can't hit you. Sundering the bow is a definite weakness. Thus, stay away from enemy meatshields or any enemy for that matter. There is a ranged Sunder feat in Complete Warrior, but I am pretty sure it only has a range of 30ft. Another option, subject to DM approval, is to get you a bow made from ironwood (via the spell) - this significantly increases the survivability of your bow. A sword and board figther isn't too much to crow about either without power attack, cleave and depending on his niche, a couple other feats. An archer isn't an archer without Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Rapid Shot, IMO. But there are several other feats that provide different tactical options. Archers are just not designed to stand in close and fire arrows, that's the sword & board guy's job. You have to play an archer with a boxer's mentality, not a brawler's. Generally, an archer is at least as fleet of foot as an enemy (assuming humanoid), so you alternate moving away and full attacking the enemy - he never gets close enough to damage you. If he's foolish enough to try and go toe to toe with you via ranged weapons, you're laughing. Another big disadvantage an archer usually has is being grappled. Grappling is a function of strength and size, usually not an archer's forte. Of course, someone has to get close enough to you to grapple. Why play an archer? Well, if you use the correct tactics, you can deal significant punishment without getting hit yourself most of the time. Archers also get versatility in overcoming certain resistances. For instance, if you're fighting were-creatures, all an archer needs is a score of silver arrows. The fighter needs a silver weapon. If you need cold iron, again the archer just needs a score of arrows. Much lighter to carry a certain type of arrow than say an extra longsword or 4. And if you've got the enemy mage burning spells on walls instead of fireballing your entire party, then you're doing your job as far as I'm concerned.
Dalthbar 06-10-05, 08:29 AM	Ranged weapons in D&D can be devastating with a few feats. Further, there are more than a few prestige classes that could possibly be argued as being broken that they're so powerful. On top of that, you can usually apply sneak attack damage to a creature if they're within 30 feet (sometimes further pending PrC abilities). Very quickly, if you build your character well, you will be adding many d6's to your attacks. One of the great things about bows is that it will confer it's magical enchantment onto it's ammo. That means that you effectively never have to worry about having any magical arrows if you have a magical bow. BUT - you always have the option to have magical arrows as versatility - a huge bonus that melee weapons do not have. The Pros are huge, don't doubt that. But there are obvious cons as well; many you've listed. But also remember that your BAB applies to melee and ranged attacks, so they can still keep a sword on their hip just in case and not have to worry that despite never wielding it, they'll still be good at using it.
Leibel 06-10-05, 09:43 AM	With the right feats archery can be great - especially if you play an elf ranger with the elven double bow(4 arrows a turn - do make sure to carry plenty of arrows around with you) from the A&E. Staying mobile is essential - an archer who gets a sword thrust at them or a axe swung at him/her is doing something wrong. And you must, absolutely must, have as in cannot live without Craft(Fletching) and a pack animal to carry extra arrows - don't hang out in the bar - make arrows like mad.
Llathos 06-10-05, 10:27 AM	There's tons of ways to counter them...that's gotta be on the con side of things... -Warp Wood -Shatter (or Dispel Magic + Shatter if it's magical) -Wind Wall (or almost any wall spell for that matter) -Slow debuff (easily caught and squished, plus your offensive capability just went in the toilet) Quite a few more that I'm not thinking of...
Inigo Carmine 06-10-05, 10:37 AM	You've naile down most of the cons of archery, but you didn't emphasise the 2 biggest pros. 1) Range. With a comp longbow, you can shoot anything within 110 ft without taking any range penalties. Unless you're travelling in a very confined area (like a dungeon) this means you can usually hit the enemies for an entire round before they can even get to your party. 2) Attack possibilities. You don't have to be adjacent to an enemy to attack him. This means you can switch targets whenever you want, and you can almost always make a full attack. Full attacks happen less than half the time in melee; you usually have to spend a round getting to the enemy, and then you might get to full attack before it drops. Then you have to move into position against a new enemy, etc. With a bow, you can always be full attacking. when your target drops, you don't have to go anywhere to be able to attacka new one. The third beenfit of a ranged weapon is god, but not as major as the two above, and it's something people have touched on already: ammunition. 3) Ammunition: you can get your bow enhanced with most of the good stuff any meleer can get. It's best to get generally useful enhancements, like straight +s, elemental, etc. But you can get arrows for specific situations rather than having to buy a whole new weapon. Get yourself some bane arrows, arrows with different damage reduction capabilities etc. Meleers have to get an alternate weapon, but you're still using your main weapon (your bow), just a different arrow type.
BW0222 06-10-05, 11:59 AM	>What are the plus and down sides to being a dedicated archer? You'd need to have something to compare yourself to. Typically, you mean against a melee-type fighter? Pros: a) Deal damage at a distance. Some targets can be defeated from 100 yards away with little risk to yourself. Say five goblins with javelins. By the time they reach you they are dead. b) Fairly easy route to multiple attacks. At 1st, you can have point-blank-shot and rapid shot. This allows two attacks at first level (with a -2). True that two-weapon fighting allows this, but melee types need to close and have targets within reach. Archer always gets his two attacks. c) More flexible targetting. Archer can often target rear rank spellcasters and can almost any target. The melee fighter has to get to the target. Worse, they can find themselves in a poorer position. For example, charging some illusions or rushing back to cover the wizard from a summoned flying creature. d) Safer. Typically, the archer is safer from the immediate dangers of melee. Of course, this assumes that you have someone else willing to stand toe-to-toe with the troll. e) Cheap magic. Magical arrows are fairly inexpensive. If you have 500gp in the party and you need to go after a wight... likely the archer gets magical arrows before the fighter gets a magical sword. f) Flexible magic. Since individual arrows are fairly cheap and archer can easily have a few +1 flaming arrows, a couple of +1 frost arrows, and a couple of sleep arrows. If you run into something immune to fire you can use the frost arrows, something with weak will saves, the sleep arrows, etc. This takes no real time to switch. A melee fighter (even with access to multiple magical weapons -- expensive) needs to put one weapon away and draw another. g) Faster movement/light armour. Archers rarely have medium/heavy armour. This makes it easier to flee. Climb, swim, etc. Also, since they typically aren't in melee, fleeing is easier. h) Mounted. With a composite weapon, you can fire (including multiple times) when moving. This, and the large mount, make up for nearly all your melee deficencies -- grapple, trip, no AoOs, etc. While it also helps melee folks, it often helps archers much better. Cons: a) Less damage. Typically, you don't have a high strength. Melee types with higher strength do more damage. 1d8+3 for a longsword. b) Firing into melee/cover. Archers can be seriously hooped if situations where allies are blocking a clear shot. -4 for cover and -4 for firing into melee makes most attacks nearly useless. In hallways, confined areas, etc. archers often waste time and expose themselves by needing to move into positons to get clear shots off. c) Damage types. Bows always do piercing damage. Annoying against skeletons, oozes and those immune to piering damage. A melee person can pull out a mace, sword, or half-spear. An archer is stuck with piercing. d) Melee. Typically once and archer ends up in melee things go bad. Sometimes she may be able to take a 5' step and shoot, but runs serious risks in grapples, sundering, trips, or when cornered. Since many combats happen in cities, dungeons, etc. where a 50'x50' area is big, it isn't that hard for many folks to close in on an archer -- baring other PCs blocking. Add summoned, flying, stealthy, hidden, etc. creatures getting into your rear ranks and archers have problems. e) Lack of AoOs. You can't attack folks moving past you or using special attacks (overrun, trip, sunder, grapple, etc.) against you. Even folks drinking potions. f) Low HPs / strength. Typically archers max dex at the cost of strength and con. This means once in melee, various attacks (damage, trip, grapple, etc.) are often much harder to avoid or accept failure in. g) Weapon dependant. Warp wood, sunder, fog, cover, narrow passages, etc. can deny you the use of your weapon. Once done, your often without any good options. Melee fighters are often much better with secondary weapons.
Tony Vargas 06-10-05, 12:14 PM	That was pretty comprehensive. One more point, and it's kinda obvious, and both pro & con. An archer puts damage on the enemy with out occupying a front-line slot. That's a pro, when you're fighting on a narrow front, and you have room for only a small number of melee types to make contact with the enemy. It's a con when you find yourself without enough melee types to 'hold the line.'
PlutoniumKnight 06-10-05, 09:09 PM	A large advantage that people haven't mentioned in the need for not many stats, They only really need dex, maybe a touch of strength for more damage.
CryoSilver 06-10-05, 09:23 PM	Well, much beyond level 5 or so, getting caught in melee shouldn't be a problem: have the wizrd cast Fly on you, go up 200 or so feet, well out of the range of most diselling (which has a range of 100+10 per caster level) deal with the -2 to attack and laugh as your groundbound foes can't touch you because you just wasted the enemy caster with 4+ arrows of Mage-Bane.
sir_argenon 06-10-05, 09:57 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=436730 check out this thread, the pro's and con's of an archer are the main topic.. i'm still in the opinion that archers need more abilities/feats to get them up to speed however..
BW0222 06-10-05, 10:57 PM	>Well, much beyond level 5 or so, getting caught in melee shouldn't be a >problem: ... Getting caught in melee gets worse as levels go up. At low-levels you can get lucky and survive a few rounds against a wolf. However, against a tiger, even a 5th-level PC is dead in a couple rounds with little hope of getting out. >have the wizrd cast Fly on you, go up 200 or so feet, well out of the range >of most diselling (which has a range of 100+10 per caster level) deal with >the -2 to attack and laugh as your groundbound foes can't touch you >because you just wasted the enemy caster with 4+ arrows of Mage-Bane. This assumes a) you have a wizard, b) you are outdoors (not underground, in a building, forest, dungeon, city, etc., etc.), c) have fly spells to blow, d) have several rounds to fly up there, e) your wizard wants to spend a round casting fly on you while fireballs are coming at him, etc., etc. That might work may maybe one combat is twenty. In most encounters, combat takes place in dungeons, buildings, or other small spaces represented one a battle map.
SnipingRanger07 06-11-05, 12:43 PM	a major bonus for archers is the fact they can sit behind some bushes, and launch a full out assault. They can be hiding and not be seen. That is the great thing about snipers in general, but only thing is, when caught, you will be needing to run and fire a lot. That is why every archer should work towards shot on the run, so that way no pesky melee fighter will be able to keep up with you easily. Remember, every time they charge you, they get a minus two to their defense. So mr. full plate will be easier to hit. You have the advantage of dodge too with shot on the run. Archers could use some more stuff, but I don't see what else you could do. only thing is, be a ranger and use the archer spells. Have fun dodging a rain of arrows.
CommanderFalken 06-11-05, 01:26 PM	another thing you forget is full attacks. Archers at 6th and above with no feats whatsoever can launch 2 arrows a round, and this increases with time. this gives them a major edge over melee and crossbow users, melee has to move in a lot closer, and crossbow has to reload (unless you have rapid reload and a lt or hand crossbow. i always favor bows if i can.also the x3 crit.
wonlee76 06-11-05, 01:39 PM	Presuming the melee fighter chooses feats to enhance his melee ability and the archer chooses feats to enhance his range ability here are the pros and cons of an archer compared to a melee fighter. (That's why I ignore arguments about the penalties for shooting into melee and soft cover penalties since there are feats that negate these penalties). Pros: #1: Ability to strike first with a full round attack. The melee fighter needs to move in before he gets his full attack option while the archer can stand back and just wail on the enemy from round 1 onwards. #2: Ability to get an extra attack at low levels. Rapid shot is a huge benefit giving them that extra attack at a nominal penalty to hit. And the improved rapid shot feat alleviates this problem even more. #3: Metallic DR is more in favor of an archer then a melee character. A melee character might have one weapon of a specified metal while the archer could have several metal arrows for the right occasion for a relatively cheap sum of money. #4: Readied actions. I taught my PCs a long time ago this is a huge benefit for archers to be able to strike enemy spellcasters by readying an action to intentionally disrupt spells that the enemy is casting. Usually this is only good if you get the drop on the enemy or the enemy spellcaster doesn't have any protections against range attacks up. #5: Ability to choose who to attack first. In a larger scale battle with several enemies, the archer is at the advantage to pick the enemy he wants to damage. The melee fighters may have their movement impeded by terrain, enemies, etc. Cons: #1: Overall, less damage compared to the melee fighters but this is offset silghtly by the fact that archers will be getting full attacks from round 1 and onwards while the melee fighters work their way up to the enemy. #2: Sunder/Disarm/Grapple. Another lesson my PCs learned the hard way since bows don't threaten. Being in melee with an enemy with a bow in hand is a bad idea. They learned to drop the bow and draw a melee weapon if that ever occurs due to the fragile nature of the bow. #3: If the archer hits for decent damage from the first round on while the melee fighters are working their way towards the enemy, the archer just painted a bullseye on his rear (this also applies to spellcasters). If the enemy is capable of range attacks themselves, they will be messing with the archer immediately while the melee guys work their way towards them. #4: Lack of tactical options with the bow. Unless your DM allows things from supplemental materials, archers suffer a lack of tactics to use against the enemy. Sometimes disarm/trip/grapple/sunder/bull rush are the best tactics to use in a fight compared to just shooting the enemy and an archer is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to this. I believe CW feats offsets some of these issues but overall the melee fighter will have a higher chance of success then the archer even with the feats available in CW. #5: Arrows! A bow is only good so long as you got the ammunition for it. Running out of ammunition is always a danger because archers can get extra attacks with a bow at a relatively low level meaning more arrows being used up per combat. Obviously there are ways to get around this potential problem (Bag of holding, quiver of ehlonna or the quivers with unlimited arrows on the WoTC site) but until you get access to such items, arrows go down quick and fast. Overall, I think an archer type and a melee type balance each other out well. Both have chances to shine in combat. (Melee guy can't reach the enemy while the archer can pepper the enemy with arrows or archer is in tight quarters and can't be effective while the melee guy tears through the enemies). The #1 advantage in my opinion is to snipe the enemy spellcasters and disrupt their spells. I use this tactic against my PCs spellcasters and they know how effective this can be. A melee fighter should have some penalties or delay in reaching the enemy spellcaster compared to the archer who sits back and shoots.
Chathsolen 06-11-05, 08:39 PM	I also i'd to point a Pro if you can get one of these. Elven Craft bows from Races of the Wild book. If say you have a Long bow in hand that's Elven crafted you can use it as a Quarter staff in melee without penalties
CryoSilver 06-11-05, 09:24 PM	Rather than be a ranger for the spells, I'd go with fighter/rogue so you can UMD items for those spells: most won't have a DC much higher than 22-24, so 3 or so levels of rogue should be enough, with the added buns of sneak attack.
Cadfan 06-11-05, 10:54 PM	Archers do lower damage, but they can put it where its needed. The way to be a really useful archer is to have things you can accomplish with an arrow other than just removing hp. For example, disrupting spellcasters. I'd also advise ranged disarm from Complete Warrior; your allies will love it when the enemy they're fighting suddenly gets its sword shot right out of its hand. That being said, archers are probably weaker than other melee fighters. The damage really does lag pretty far behind. But with a ranger based build, you also get nearly as many skills as a rogue, and a bunch of other miscellaneous abilities. So if you think of your character as part fighter, part skill monkey, you won't get jealous when the barbarian power attacks for 50 points of damage, and you plink an enemy for 11.
Rakasha#5 06-12-05, 09:14 AM	Other than range, I'm not seeing much in favor of the bows OTHER THAN RANGE! THAT IS A GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE!!!
Shazarn 06-12-05, 01:47 PM	okay so 110 feet away is your enemy. he is wearing full plate and is human. (speed 20 run X3) round one Archer full attack, 5foot step back (115 feet) meele run 60 feet (55 feet) round 2 archer full attack, 5foot step back (60 feet) meele run 60 feet (melle range) round 3 archer run straight back (120 feet) (melle AoO) meele run 60 feet (60 feet) round 4 archer full attack, 5foot step (65 feet) meele run 60 feet (5 feet) round five archer run straight back (125 feet) meele... well I think you get it. (tjis is in support of Rakasha)
sir_argenon 06-12-05, 02:42 PM	Range is subjective, and it's usefulness is measured by the amount of time the archer spends outdoors.. if you are in a dungeon, caverns, a castle, wizard's tower, or any other confined space, range is all but useless. i would hate for my "GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE" to be something that is nullified so easily. in addition, there are COUNTLESS ways that an archer can be stymied, including bad weather (wind and fog), concealment, cover, spell defenses, etc.. theres even a second level arcane spell that gives you dr 10/magic vs arrows. in terms of damage dealing, the archer really lacks punch. this will really be evident in later levels also. so please don't look for your archer to do any legolas-esque feats, killing huge monsters and such.. it aint gonna happen doing 1d8 per shot. the archer is mainly used as a support/mage disruptor/utility type of character, unfortunately. definitely not a damage dealer. in 3.5 archers are nerfed so badly that it will take a lot of prc's, a generous DM, and some great ability scores to make an archer that will carry his weight into the later levels... try getting into the DWS, Peer Arch, and OOTBI prcs. they will help you a lot, and if your into sniping then take some levels in Crag Arch too.
WaterRabbit 06-12-05, 02:42 PM	I think many of you are overlooking the obvious disadvantage of the archer character. The PCs are usually on the offensive. When they are on the defensive they usually have to protect someone or something. In either of these situations the archer does not have the ability to use retrograde movement. In fact, probably only 1 in 10 to maybe as high as 1 in 20 combats does an archer really have the ability to shine. Archers work best when they are on the flanks of the combat and not directly behind their own lines. The melee character that is designed for killing mages is also great at killing archers -- the monk. A 3rd level monk with the run feat can cover 200 feet in one round. If the archer has room to maneuver the monk has even more. Additionally, the monk also will have taken Deflect Arrows and automatically deflect one of the attacks made by the archer (since when running with the run feat you retain your dexterity bonus and if he is going after the archer he is going to be aware of the attack). The monk's job is to get behind the enemy front line and take out mages, archers, and other weak combatants. Finally, the biggest disadvange for an archer is if their opponet seeks cover. A fighter in full plate charging down an archer will do a double move from one cover location to another. If he has a tower shield he can use it for total cover meaning the archer cannot land a shot on him. In essense, this puts them at a stand-off. The fighter cannot harm the archer and vice versa. So how did a fighter take out an archer? He uses a horse and charges the archer down. A heavy warhorse has 30 hp and a speed of 50 which is enough to get the fighter into melee with the archer. In summary, archers only shine when they have plenty of maneuver room. However, plenty of maneuver room also allows opponents to maneuver as well. D&D spells all have counters to them, so giving the archer fly is not as big as advantage as you might think. At 5th level a fly spell only lasts for 5 minutes. Obscuring Mist at 5th level also lasts for 5 minutes and completely negates an archer. While the archer is up in the air doing nothing for 5 minutes his buddies on the ground are getting slaughtered since they now have local superiority in numbers. Blindness is particularly effective against enemy archers and at 5th level it has a range of 150 feet or double that if enlarged. So the archer would have to go up in the air 305 feet (-4 to hit) just to be sure, which is 6 rounds of movement (Fly speed of 60 or 120 feet on a double move, halved for ascending.) Just to be really sure, he probably should go to long range or 605' to avoid the fireball or other long range spells which is now 11 rounds of movement and a -8 to hit. All tactics have their counter tactic. It just depends on how much foreknowledge each side has about the other. In general the archer will get the spotlight less than the melee fighter IMHO.
sir_argenon 06-12-05, 02:53 PM	WaterRabbit, excellent post. i think you are one of the few people that post on these topics that have actually PLAYED or WITNESSED an archer character, and know how easily he is countered. Its very easy to think up all these hypothetical situations where the archer will be useful and dominating.. but in real game play, that all goes out the window.
Centauri 06-12-05, 03:52 PM	Let me just say I'm a big fan of archers. I wanted to comment on the "pro" that archers can have a variety of arrows for different occassions: special arrowhead materials, various magical properties, things to slip by DR, etc. Except that unless he has the equivalent of a quiver full of each of these, he'll get in only a few shots at the enemy harmed by a specific arrow type. After that, he'd better hope that the fighters have pulled out their weapon with the same property, or that the monster assumes there are more arrows of that type coming and runs.
Rakasha#5 06-12-05, 10:31 PM	I would like to list the following pros The order of the bow easily gives it an insanely powerful punch. Your big full plate guy can't follow across a river or up a tree of cliff, unless gasp! he also uses a bow, Also even normal archers can use magic arrows to great effect also Also the monk is a good archer killer and a full plate guy kills the monk and the mage kills the full plate guy and the archer kills the mage it is like rock paper scisors. Also you say how easy is it to nullify an archer. Well lets see how to nullify a big plate guy Be across and obstacle Shatter his stuff (gasp it works on swords and armor too!) Be more than 5 feet away.
WaterRabbit 06-13-05, 12:26 AM	I would like to list the following pros The order of the bow easily gives it an insanely powerful punch. Your big full plate guy can't follow across a river or up a tree of cliff, unless gasp! he also uses a bow, Also even normal archers can use magic arrows to great effect also Also the monk is a good archer killer and a full plate guy kills the monk and the mage kills the full plate guy and the archer kills the mage it is like rock paper scisors. Also you say how easy is it to nullify an archer. Well lets see how to nullify a big plate guy Be across and obstacle Shatter his stuff (gasp it works on swords and armor too!) Be more than 5 feet away. I think you are missing the point here. It is not that an archer cannot be a powerful character under the right circumstances. It is just that those circumstances don't occur vary often in most D&D games. Therefore an archer character has little opportunity to shine. Additionally, a mage fills the same role in the standard adventuring party better. So the archer will typically place second to the party melee fighter and wizard. The rogue archer role can be a viable choice, but again has the disadvantage of keeping the archer in melee range if he wants to get sneak attacks.
Mellowship Slinky 06-13-05, 01:04 AM	I don't know about you, but I'd hate to play a character who's combat ability is completely obliterated by a third level spell (wind wall)
J_Riley 06-13-05, 11:25 AM	Unfortunately, the effectiveness of an archer is greatly affected by your DM - he determines how much time you spend outdoors and it is basically his tactics against yours. If he doesn't pay much attention to tactics, then archer characters can do a pretty decent job. But by an large, an archer is a support character. At least if you are enough of an annoyance to command special tactics from the DM, then you must be doing something right. At low levels, his handy bow shots supporting a fighter with Cleave go pretty well together. He shoots the bad guys around the fighter, softening them up and the fighter kills one and then cleaves another. This tactic starts to lose steam against opponents with copious amounts of HP though. I combine wizard levels with my archer to make him more effective, that should say something about an archer's abilities. But being able to take 5 levels in Wizard so you can get damage enhancing spells is very nice. Right now, my archer can cast Sonic Weapon (2nd level spell) for addition d6's of damage and when he gets 3rd level spells, he can stack Flame Arrow on that for addition d6's of damage. On top of that, he has 4 levels in fighter to get Weapon specialization for the extra damage. each arrow is 1d8 + 4 (+2 mighty bow as well as WS) + 1d6 sonic + 1d6 fire. I realize this requires two rounds of casting spells, but if you choose Extend Metamagic as your fifth level wizard bonus feat, you can stretch a single casting of those spells pretty far. Plus, you get all those spells instead of nagging the Wizard/Sorcerer for them, like Fly and a couple others. Toss in the Practised Spellcaster feat and you can get a BAB of 17 and a CL of 15 (with levels of OotBi & Eldritch Knight). Another bonus of having a few wizard levels is if the bad guys get close, your high DEX score almost guarantees those Ray spells will hit (touch attack you can add your DEX to). So when the big, bad plate armor wearing fighter gets too close (within 30-40 ft) you toast him with a Ray of Enfeeblement which has no save and will probably drop his strength enough that he has difficulty moving with that 50lbs of armor he's wearing. Another option is a 4d6 scorching ray when they get close.
WaterRabbit 06-13-05, 09:25 PM	Unfortunately, the effectiveness of an archer is greatly affected by your DM - he determines how much time you spend outdoors and it is basically his tactics against yours. I disagree with this. Unless your DM goes out of his way to provide for the archer character, the standard campaign environments are against him. Visibility (Night, Fog, Dust, etc.) Wind (High winds and storms) Cramped quarters (Buildings, Thick forests, Dungeons, etc.) Cover (Trees, Tables, Tower Shields, etc.) Unusual Conditions (Underwater, Plane of Air, Zero G, etc.) You have overcome some of these problems by mixing in wizard. Great, but then you discuss mostly wizard tactics and no archer tactics that deal with any of the above situations. So your character is a wizard that uses a bow and not an archer, which for purposes of most of this discussion assumes a dedicated fighter + archer prestige classes. Additionally you will probably deal more damage as a dedicated wizard and be more versatile. Instead of using metamagiced 2nd level spells you could use 3rd level mass damage spells. Casting a fireball into a group of opponents set them up better for fighter’s cleave attacks than firing a couple of arrows at each. Plus you are spending an action doing a little bit of damage to multiple foes instead of killing a single foe. Unless you know how many hit points your opponents have it is a risky proposition. One great thing about archers is when they are used in mass. If a character (especially a wizard) does not have something to protect them (Protection from Arrows) from massed arrow fire they will go down in one round. :eek:
Me, Myself, & 101 others 06-13-05, 10:13 PM	I would like to list the following pros The order of the bow easily gives it an insanely powerful punch. Your big full plate guy can't follow across a river or up a tree of cliff, unless gasp! he also uses a bow, Also even normal archers can use magic arrows to great effect also Also the monk is a good archer killer and a full plate guy kills the monk and the mage kills the full plate guy and the archer kills the mage it is like rock paper scisors. Also you say how easy is it to nullify an archer. Well lets see how to nullify a big plate guy Be across and obstacle Shatter his stuff (gasp it works on swords and armor too!) Be more than 5 feet away. I do hope that English is not your primary language, because that post is hard to decipher. Let me see if I can go through this one by one... Yes, Order of the Bow does give a nice amount of damage, but it's one of the few truly decent Archer prestige classes. If that's the only option for archers, they're still in pretty sad shape with any good bowman being basically a cookie cutter. For a melee fighter, there are a wide variety of avenues to choose from for advancement. An archer can't cross a river during the middle of combat, either. If a bow and string gets wet, the bow is pretty much useless. The wood will warp and the string will fray, rendering the whole weapon into kindling. Also, hoping a river is nearby is a pretty pathetic defensive strategy. As for climbing a tree, if you're waiting in ambush, all well and good. But, if this is the middle of combat, are you really going to stop and scurry up a tree? First, you've got to put your bow away, second, it slows you down, third, anyone can hit you and make you fall while climbing. No, they don't need a bow, the can throw a -rock- if they have to. Trees generally occur outside. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons, dragons live in caves, and both caves and duneons are notoriously short on trees. As for magic bows and magic arrows, I don't like to rely on magic. Find another excuse. There are campaigns with little, or no, magic, and in the cases a bow is just a bow. Or, in campaigns with high magic or medium amounts of magic, the fighter also has magical weapons, and the wizard is there with lots of nice flashy ranged attacks most of which are better than shooting a pointy stick at something. Also, anyone or anything capable of a dispel magic can nullify the 'great variety' of the archer's arsenal. The monk was mentioned to point out that you can play something that has the vaunted range of an archer, without most of the disadvantages. The monk's weapons can't be sundered, dispelled, lost, or stolen. A wind wall does nothing to a monk (unless it's a pixie monk or something silly like that). A regular wall or obstacle can be overcome much more quickly by a monk than by your typical archer. And, if your archer decides to do something silly like jump into a river or scurry up a tree, the monk has nothing in its hands to put away/drop and no bow to protect from water, so he can follow you with no problem. Your average monk is also able to stand toe to toe with a fighter in many circumstances, so he wouldn't be unduly troubled by your 'big plate guy.' As for shatter, yes, it works on swords and armor. But, warp wood doesn't work on a sword. And, a bow has lower hardness and such than a sword or an axe will. There's also a Protection from Arrows spell, and in Forgotten Realms, there's another spell that'll reverse an arrow back on the archer. As for the five foot step back, people can charge and bullrush still... Really, people keep going on and on about an archer's range. Oh me, oh my, they have such a long range. Who cares? Why doesn't someone list a truly useful benefit? I don't care if a composite longbow has a range of 110'. Half the feats are only usable at close ranges, anyway. And, for the rest, it just doesn't matter enough to be worth it. Unless you're defending a castle wall, in the middle of a field or desert, or fighting along a -very- straight road, being able to shoot hundreds of feet is just meaningless fluff. Has anyone ever heard of wind? What about fog? Or rain? All these things make it much harder to accurately shoot a target from range. And most wooded areas, such as forests, marshes, jungles, and so forth, the trees will break up line of sight so you'll pretty much never have a 110' clear shot. Most encounters take place either indoors and/or underground. You're going to be fighting in tight confines with no room to maneuver, with your friends and allies between you and your target. 110'? Good luck. As a couple people pointed out, a bow or other ranged weapon is nice for hurting the enemies before the lines close. Get in a couple shots before the melee is engaged. I admit, that's pretty nice. But, it doesn't seem to be worth building a chracter around.
ShinIchiro 06-14-05, 02:13 AM	I'd have to completely disagree with this rock-paper-scissors thing. It's how you play your character that determines its effectiveness. Now to the archer debate: Firstly, the archer's main disadvantage is that a straight line of fire is required. I don't know about you, but I rarely play on flat plains. In fact, almost 100% of what I've done is forrest. Unless you're like Hawkeye from marvel comics, I doubt you have arrows that go through or around trees. While people have mentioned this point earlier, I find this to be the deciding factor in archery contests. The second point is that an archer shooting people from whatever distance is something I like to call exposed. Sneak up however you can and you're in optimum killing conditions. Also, people like druids can just get to you and kill you if they charge attack with a rapidly moving wild shape or if they tree travel. The thing about archers is that people seem to be assuming here that archers only come in the sniper variety. You can probably find archers sneaking around or being strategically right in the middle of combat. The main types of archers I see right now are traditional snipers, scouting types, and those that just use archery to whittle down opponents that they finish with a sword. All of these have their own seperate weaknesses and bonuses. I bet you that you could find an archer who takes advantage of being close up with an enemy or one who lures enemies close and places traps around. In conclusion, I'd say that the biggest advantage of an archer is their versitility. They choose where they are and how they are, making enemies come into the place of their choice.