Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Necrochaos 08-15-06, 10:38 AM	My question is in regards to my archer character. He's 6th level with an AC of 19. Just wearing a chain shirt and has a deflection mod from a special cert from a mod. I hope I don't have to get into melee, as my ranged is much better than my melee (+1 bow with the feats vs a MW long spear). Is AC 19 good enough or should I start to upgrade my armor? What armor should I be shooting for? Mithril Chain Shirt (currently Dex 21)?
trollbill 08-15-06, 11:01 AM	My question is in regards to my archer character. He's 6th level with an AC of 19. Just wearing a chain shirt and has a deflection mod from a special cert from a mod. I hope I don't have to get into melee, as my ranged is much better than my melee (+1 bow with the feats vs a MW long spear). Is AC 19 good enough or should I start to upgrade my armor? What armor should I be shooting for? Mithril Chain Shirt (currently Dex 21)? Several points. 1) The higher level you get, the less AC matters. At high levels, the attack bonus of some monsters just isn't phased by a high AC, and opponents are more likely to have ways of hurting you that don't have to worry about making attack rolls. Unless you make a special effort to do so, it is very difficult to keep your AC up to par with what the monsters need to hit you. 2) AC at low levels is very important because you just don't have the HP to survive as easily at that level. 3) It usually isn't as important to have a high AC if you are a second ranker because you will get attacked less. 4) But if you are attacked, you will wish you had it. Especially if you find it necessary to fire your bow while threatened. Which is likely if your opponent has Reach as it is far more difficult to 5-ft. step out of his threat area. 5) Unless you play with the same group all the time, you are not garanteed to be a second ranker. If you are the only fighter-type in a muster, it is likely you will have to take a front rank position. I remember playing an LG adventure when my Druid was still first level. We had a Cleric 1, Druid 1, Fighter 2 (archer), Ranger 3 (archer), Wizard 3. The archers both insisted that they not fight first rank because they were so much more effective with their bows. While that may have been true, having the Cleric 1 and Druid 1 hold the front line while the higher level fighters hid behind them did not sit well with me or the cleric. Think about that if you ever get put in a similar situation. 6) Here's a great archer trick. Use corners. If an archer is on one side of a corner and a meleer is on the other, as per the melee cover rules, the archer has cover from the meleer, while as per the ranged cover rules, the meleer does not have cover from the archer. This means that the meleer cannot take AoOs against the archer, even if he is firing his bow, and the archer gets a +4 cover bonus to his AC against the meleer's. While the meleer does not gain a +4 cover bonus against the archer.
Swiftbrook 08-15-06, 11:26 AM	My question is in regards to my archer character. He's 6th level with an AC of 19. Just wearing a chain shirt and has a deflection mod from a special cert from a mod. I'm also an archer. 7th Level Ranger/Fighter also with an AC of 19. I've played a couple of APL 8 mods and I haven't been hit yet by melee. I think this might not be the general rule. What I have seen is a lot more Touch attacks. My next purchase is going to be Gloves of Dexterity. This gives me the a better base AC, to-hit, reflex save and touch attack AC. Much more bang for your gold. In the long run I'm looking at getting an animated tower shield, it will add 5 to my AC and still let me shoot my bow. -Swiftbrook
Iswald 08-15-06, 11:40 AM	6) Here's a great archer trick. Use corners. If an archer is on one side of a corner and a meleer is on the other, as per the melee cover rules, the archer has cover from the meleer, while as per the ranged cover rules, the meleer does not have cover from the archer. This means that the meleer cannot take AoOs against the archer, even if he is firing his bow, and the archer gets a +4 cover bonus to his AC against the meleer's. While the meleer does not gain a +4 cover bonus against the archer. I think (given my revised understanding) they both have cover vs each other in this example. In particular, there are two examples on page 151 of the PHB with diagrams showing how cover works in ranged and melee attacks.
flametounge 08-15-06, 11:52 AM	Yeah, I'm a Cleric 4 but I've had 19 AC since 1st level. Unless you're walking around in a shiny hunk of metal with slits for eyes (aka full plate) thats the best you're getting unitl all the glitterly magic protection items.
trollbill 08-15-06, 12:09 PM	I think (given my revised understanding) they both have cover vs each other in this example. In particular, there are two examples on page 151 of the PHB with diagrams showing how cover works in ranged and melee attacks. Don't have the PHB in front of me, but here is what the SRD has to say about it: COVER To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. So if an archer uses the corner that contacts the meleer's corner to determine cover, then there is no cover because: A) The line from that corner does not pass through a square that blocks line of effect or provides cover. B) The line from that corner does not pass through a border that blocks line of effect or provides cover. (It does pass along such a border, but it does not pass through it.) C) The line from that corner does not pass through a square occupied by a creature (except the target, which is always the case). Since the archer only has to use one corner from its own square to determine cover, while the meleer has to use all 4, the archer (or meleer using Reach) has the advantage here.
echoota 08-15-06, 02:36 PM	I'm an archer also and I'd get the mithril shirt plus add the MW spiked armor option on them at the same time. 1. You get your whole dex bonus for AC. If you've got it then use it. 2. You get rid of that -2 Armor check penalty on eight or so skills. Getting that mithril shirt suddenly means you have another 16 skill points worth of value to your character! 3. It's lighter, you can carry more without dipping into a medium load. More survival gear and you keep your movement up. 4. The armor spikes let you always threaten the squares around you for attacks of opportunity. You always have a weapon handy, even if you're caught holding your bow in melee. The spikes also help against someone sundering your fancy bow. If someone tries to sunder it just deflect with the spikes instead. I've got this setup and it's working great. When I get the money it's going to get +1, after that I'm going to apply an AR access power that will let me ignore the first life draining type attack per day on me. So your best bet is to get mirthril chain + armor spikes, get it enchanted and then, if you can with AR... get the armor to help with avoiding or saving against some nasty spell or supernatural effect.
trollbill 08-15-06, 02:47 PM	And if you happen to be an archer with Simple Weapon Proficiency but not Martial Weapon Proficiency, you can used a Spiked Gauntlet to the same effect. Also, a Mithral or Darkwood Buckler is good. You don't gain the bonus to AC on the same round you use your bow, but it counts every other time, like if you get caught flat-footed or forced into melee.
solbergb 08-15-06, 05:30 PM	It depends on your character. In general, heavy infantry type characters and "in close" healers tend to need AC the most. For everybody else it is a very nice luxury to have, but just about any other kind of character is playable with no armor at all. Very low AC can cause the occasional death though, so my tendency is to get "AC if it seems cheap" and not fuss with it otherwise unless the primary role of the character is to get in the face of melee-monsters and stay there. It *is* possible to get ahead of the "armor curve" and stay ahead, from level 1 to level 15. It is harder to both do that and do reasonable melee damage, or without having a weakness somewhere else (saving throws, or really slow, or huge spell slot investment/having to guess when to cast spells etc). Most characters who do this go with full plate, carry shields (even if they don't use them all the time) and have a significant percentage of their entire wealth tied up in armor class (or if not, are getting help from spellcasting long duration AC buff spells). As an example, a greater stone golem has something like a +46 to hit. A 15th level character can make it miss if he's got a big investment in AC and is fighting defensively with improved expertise. Most other folks will just get smacked. A char who *can* go toe-to-toe with a greater stone golem on AC though, can fight at full power versus more typical EL15-18 enemies and not have to expertise. So there is some value to this approach, if you can do it. A lot of enemies in that level range have more like +25 to hit on their primary attacks, which a 35-40ish AC can cope with some of the time, and can also elminate secondaries and power attack from the equation. Such characters though, are almost never archers. The bow is too vulnerable to disarm or sunder to risk that kind of close combat as a routine thing, and the high dex model often conflicts with the (relatively inexpensive) heavy armor/shield approach. Archers tend to get away with nothing but a +1 chain shirt for most of their life. They've got decent dex, they aren't expected to tank melee monsters and can use cover and superior spot/listen skills to minimize the risks of ranged combat and surprise. Generally archers invest in offense first, everything else second (because the main thing an archer brings to the table is steady, reliable damage, and an archer that isn't hurting the enemy is rarely contributing meaningfully in any other way in that combat) If your dex is going to be 22 any time soon, even a mithril shirt+1 is going to cramp your style. You'd be better off with mage armor. If it is going to be a while before the next upgrade, getting a mithril shirt+2 could be a decent 2000gp investment that will last you quite a while. You should keep an eye out for even lighter armor with higher dex mods (armor is nice, you can hang enchantments like light fortification or death ward on it) but don't go crazy on armor expense if your dex+cheaper armor is better.
paigeoliver 08-15-06, 07:38 PM	I have a very high armor class archer that is still effective. She is level 7 and AC 26 now and gets AC 27 when her dex bumps at level 8. I'll likely end up about 30 AC eventually, since I still don't have an amulet of natural armor and my protection ring is only +1, both of those could go +2 to give me a 30. Right now at level 7 I do 3 attacks at d6+7. It would be +8 but my bow is for a lower str than I have now. I usually hit with 2 out of 3 of them (if not all 3). I don't compare to raging half-orc greatsword guys, but there have been plenty of fights where I was the only one left standing and I finished the fight by myself. But its hard for the bad guys to get at a halfling dog archer if there is any room for me to move around. Which is why I am usually the last one standing when things go bad. My major weakness would be will save, mine is almost non-existant (it is a +4, but 3 of those are from a one year duration AR reward). I finally found access to a bow of the STR she has while raging (20) (she usually only rages if someone tries to grapple her), and have considered taking extra rage and setting her up around raging, but I am not sure if I want to take the armor class hit of raging all the time. I'd have 2 bows at that point, a +5 composite longbow str 20 and a +2 composite longbow str 14 (already own that one, and that is her fatigued str). The reason for the super high plus as opposed to the flaming, frost, shock, bow +1 that most archers use is that I got access to a half price weapon upgrade up to +5. I MIGHT only end up with a +4 though, as the favor is out of region and it depends on how much gold I have saved up the next time I make it to that region.
Iswald 08-16-06, 12:01 PM	Since the archer only has to use one corner from its own square to determine cover, while the meleer has to use all 4, the archer (or meleer using Reach) has the advantage here. I see what you mean now with bows, but don't see how reach helps with cover and being adjacent (unless you have a spiked chain and exotic reach). 4. The armor spikes let you always threaten the squares around you for attacks of opportunity. You always have a weapon handy, even if you're caught holding your bow in melee. The spikes also help against someone sundering your fancy bow. If someone tries to sunder it just deflect with the spikes instead. How do you deflect an attack with spikes? Just use them with the AoO and disarming them with the spikes? You should be making your opposed attack role with your bow, unless I'm mistaken.
trollbill 08-16-06, 01:24 PM	I see what you mean now with bows, but don't see how reach helps with cover and being adjacent (unless you have a spiked chain and exotic reach). It doesn't help (much) with longspears and other polearms that have that 5-ft. safety buffer around them where they can't attack. But if you have a spiked chain (or a few other exotic weapons), or gained Reach from a size change such as Enlarge Person, or are just a DM playing a large intelligent opponent in an intelligent fashion, it is a useful trick. It's even better than the archer trick because you can take AoOs on him because it is a melee attack he doesn't have cover from but he can't take AoOs on you because you have melee cover from him.
clannagh 08-16-06, 06:54 PM	my level 4 ranger is currently AC 22 with dex 21 that comes from: dex .... +5 (goes to +6 when dex hits 22) mithral chain shirt +1 (2200 gc or so) ... +5 Ac buckler +1 (1165 gc) .. + 2 AC the buckler does not interfere with shooting but most DM's will disallow the +2 AC in rounds you have shot .. but its very handy when you are flat footed and lost your dex also remember a spiked chain can be weapon finessed .. a level of swashbuckler would let you use a spiked chain with your dex bonus making up for the -4 for non proficiencey other things to look for are the +1 ioun stone (nsight bonus) , ring of protection +1 (defelection bonus) and amulet of natural armor +1
RLWilde 08-18-06, 01:50 AM	1) The higher level you get, the less AC matters. At high levels, the attack bonus of some monsters just isn't phased by a high AC, and opponents are more likely to have ways of hurting you that don't have to worry about making attack rolls. Doesn't that also depend on what you're fighting? If fighting an opponent that has multiple attacks with a weapon, a high AC may not often prevent the first attack from connecting, but it can help reduce the chances of multiple hits in a full attack sequence.
Madfox11 08-18-06, 03:23 AM	AC can be very important, especially at higher levels (APL 8+), but for the investment to be useful you need to get that AC above a certain treshhold and that costs money and perhaps feats (Improved Buckler Fighting and a decent buckler would be a good choice for an archer). Although the type of opponents you face is also important. Do they have Power Attack? How manouverable are they? How intelligent are they? How willing is the DM to play the opponents smart even if it might end in the death of a PC (assuming the opponent is smart of course). Personally, I would invest at least some good money in AC. I am biased though, I have a strong dislike for archers that hide behind the lower level characters even when there is no other decent tank. A good archer might not be as lethal in melee as a good melee fighter, but he is still better than that 1st level druid or cleric mentioned by somebody else. Such situations happened too often to me, especially irritating when the DM does not focus on the archers the moment the monsters should realize where the real threat is comming from. Grappling and sunder can be rather effective against archers...
opa 08-18-06, 04:54 AM	I have a now 6th level Archer with a +5 Bab (1 level of rogue), and I find myself not being able to use my bow about half the mods I play in.. now thats probably just because of the unlucky table makeups I have encountered, and my tendency to play down with this character, but about half the time he ends up tanking (all feats and magic spent on archery), because as has been said even optimized as an archer, he is the best tank for the job at alot of tables I have been playing recently.. You have to be prepared to suck it up and tank when you are the best there is availbale, kinda sucks , and the character would be way more effective in back, but hey what can you do... you gotta suck it up and do it... We have a few druids that have to suck up being primary healers on alot of tables and thats certainly not what theyd like to be doing either Opa Dasco Bissel
Swiftbrook 08-18-06, 07:55 AM	As been pointed out by several posters, generally, you don't know the make-up of your table before you play an adventure. You may be an archer, but at this table you may need to be the tank, or the healer. As I look at my Ranger/Archer build, as I increase in level it will be harder and harder for me to play the roll of the tank or the cleric. I can be a healer, but I have no other cleric abilities. I have sacrificed AC for by bow. My AC hasn't changed in 3 or 4 levels! I did pick up a shield if I need to enter combat as a tank. I'm done 'building' my bow for a long time, so now I'm going to focus on AC/protection. Focus on what you can bring to the table. I bring a character who can find the enemy, help the party no be surprised by an enemy, take out an enemy quickly from a distance and an emergency healer. Hope that helps. -Swiftbrook
trollbill 08-18-06, 10:07 AM	Unpredictable table makeup is the primary reason my archers always bring something else to the table than just archery. My current archer build is a Scout who will eventually be mixing levels of Order of the Bow Initiate. This lets him act as party rogue when not being party archer. My LotGR character was an elf cleric of Solinare Thilandara with the Elf and War domain, Rapid Shot and a MW Longbow for my regional bonus. Two attacks a round at +5/+5 for 1d8+1 made him the most powerful fighter in the party at 1st level, and when it was all over he could heal everyone up.
Lomiat 08-18-06, 12:20 PM	Though this thread has pretty much turned into an "archers' only" discussion, I thought I'd contribute some small insight into AC from a different standpoint--that of my 9th level "light fighter" tripper (halberd, not spiked chain). His AC is 18 at 9th level. It's been 18 for about 3 or so levels, since it went up from 17, where it started. I could invest in heavier armor, I suppose, than the mithral chain I've bought him, but I've been gambling that his Rogue evasion is, ultimately, going to be more useful than AC. This depends largely, too, upon the other wager I made--that his ability to consistently dish out high amounts of damage is going to limit the number of rounds that he spends getting beaten up. (And, for that matter, that he'll play with decent parties more often than not that can support him.) It's also true that since he's a tripper, he often fights with his opponents on the ground unable to reach him, but against the bigger monsters, that's just not the case. At any rate, his survival--thus far--is standing to prove that survivability in D&D combats stems not just from one primary attribute (AC), but from a balance of many factors, several of which you can control: AC, to hit bonus, damage output, initiative modifier (going first equals one less round for the bad guys to hit you), hit point total, versatility (feats and ability to fill niches in a party, etc), and so forth. In my experience, the traditional high-AC, high-hit point tank fills a role primarily meant to keep the other party members safe by standing between the bad guys and the rest of the party. This works well against big, solitary-monster encounters, but not so well when the party gets ambushed by a number of opponents and needs them dispatched quickly. The high-damage, low-AC character has to understand that his primary role isn't to keep the party safe by being an untouchable wall between bad guys and good guys; rather, it's to keep the party safe by killing the bad guys as quickly as possible. Archers who focus on AC, I believe, are completely misinterpreting their role in a party.
trollbill 08-18-06, 01:54 PM	Archers who focus on AC, I believe, are completely misinterpreting their role in a party. A cleric who doesn't focus on healing is completely misinterpreting their role as party healer. A wizard who doesn't focus on artillery spells is completely misinterpreting their role as the party artillery. A rogue who doesn't focus on trap detection and removal is completely misinterpreting their role as party trapbreaker. These are all true statements, but the practical problem with this is that very few adventuring parties can afford to have party members who only fulfill one, single role. The meleer doesn't just deal melee damage to the monsters, he occupies them so they can't get at the more squishy members of the party. The wizard doesn't just damage the opponent with arcane spells, he allows the bypassing of difficult obstacles through spells like Knock, Fly and Teleport. The Cleric doesn't just heal party members but acts as a secondary meleer, Undead counter, and buffer. The moment any character starts focusing only on one party role, their other party roles suffer. If your party makeup is balanced enough, then you can afford to do this and this specialization benefits the party. But if the party is missing a vital role, this specialization hurts the entire party. So for a home game, where the makeup of the party is known and consistant, a highly specialized archer (or anything else) works well. But if you aren't playing in that type of environment, which many LG players aren't, high order specilization can be fatal. This is doubly so because you can get into situations that can nerf a specilization and if you don't have anything else to fall back on, you have a problem. How effective is your, I focused everything on archery archer if you end up fighting in a heavy fog bank? With a 4 person group, it is unlikely the party can afford to have someone that uber specialized unless everyone else is a really good generalist. Groups of 5 or 6 can afford to have 1 specialist, maybe 2 tops. I think the best route to go if you really want an Uber specialist is to get the Leadership feat and make your cohort one. Especially if the specialist gestahlts well with character, like a front line fighter who has an archer cohort. This at least garauntees mutliple roles are filled. Now as to AC on an archer, having a high AC would allow the archer to intefere with the enemy more and protect the squishier party members, though it is certainly not the only secondary role available to archers. It's simply one possible choice. As I noted before, one of my archers doubled as party rogue and another doubled as party healer.
Mommy was an Orc 08-18-06, 02:00 PM	I think the real question ends up being: Do you expect, on average, to survive an opponent doing a full attack on you with all their points of BAB put into Power Attack. There's ways to avoid this - have a high AC, don't be near full attacks, be hard to target via concealment, etc... Where it gets dicey is when you're a low AC character near something with Power Attack, it is either smart enough to realize this or dumb enough not to care, and it gets a full attack on you. Having a decent AC will make those iterative attacks miss or make you hit once or twice instead of three to four times. I also don't think it is a bad idea for an Archer to have a good AC - one time, I was even playing up and I was the best tank of the party(and this was a Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1) Someone had to do it in a party where the two wizards dragged us up to APL 4...one of the reasons I like generally being a Rogue Mutt Archer instead of an Archer - my responsibility is usually being the trapfinder, not the fighter who isn't on the front lines...
Iswald 08-19-06, 03:04 AM	A cleric who doesn't focus on healing is completely misinterpreting their role as party healer. A wizard who doesn't focus on artillery spells is completely misinterpreting their role as the party artillery. A rogue who doesn't focus on trap detection and removal is completely misinterpreting their role as party trapbreaker. These are all true statements, but the practical problem with this is that very few adventuring parties can afford to have party members who only fulfill one, single role. Alternatively, these are all false statements as it's possible to fill different roles depending upon how you've built your character and a player's desire to play a unique character instead of a stereotype. But, this is neither here nor there as it's off topic. Note that it is cheaper to improve armor in general than to upgrade a weapon. Also, it costs less to gain enhancement bonuses to an armor and a shield than to continually upgrade just one of them.
Necrochaos 08-19-06, 11:44 AM	Wow, I opened a can of worms. Maybe I should put a lid on it. Thank you for the input.
Lupo 08-19-06, 12:08 PM	A cleric who doesn't focus on healing is completely misinterpreting their role as party healer. A wizard who doesn't focus on artillery spells is completely misinterpreting their role as the party artillery. A rogue who doesn't focus on trap detection and removal is completely misinterpreting their role as party trapbreaker. These are all true statements, but the practical problem with this is that very few adventuring parties can afford to have party members who only fulfill one, single role. Alternatively, these are all false statements as it's possible to fill different roles depending upon how you've built your character and a player's desire to play a unique character instead of a stereotype. But, this is neither here nor there as it's off topic. Note that it is cheaper to improve armor in general than to upgrade a weapon. Also, it costs less to gain enhancement bonuses to an armor and a shield than to continually upgrade just one of them. Wow, I opened a can of worms. Maybe I should put a lid on it. Thank you for the input. the problem is not a simple true or false statement analysis :) but a cleric that is a devoted melee or archer type damage dealer and can't fill the role of party healer when there is no other healing character, a buffing, diviner or what-so-ever arcane caster that can't at least do some artillery job (that is why i am not a fan of warmages, they are the opposite kind, the ONLY can be arcane artillery, no buffs, no utillity just raw damage), a rogue that has specialized in mobile hitting or jumping on foes from the ceiling and can't spot a hanging pink elephant trap when under it, all those characters have done something wrong in LIVING GREYHAWK, where you can end at a table with five arcane casters and a marshall :). ciao martin m. ps: are the worms the ones that were in the last shipment of miniatures????
copper_wyrmling 08-19-06, 11:19 PM	but a cleric that is a devoted melee or archer type damage dealer and can't fill the role of party healer when there is no other healing character, a buffing, diviner or what-so-ever arcane caster that can't at least do some artillery job (that is why i am not a fan of warmages, they are the opposite kind, the ONLY can be arcane artillery, no buffs, no utillity just raw damage), a rogue that has specialized in mobile hitting or jumping on foes from the ceiling and can't spot a hanging pink elephant trap when under it, all those characters have done something wrong in LIVING GREYHAWK, where you can end at a table with five arcane casters and a marshall :). I partially agree with this. Being able to do more than one thing well is very useful, unless you've got so many characters that you can just pick the character who fills gaps in the rest of the party (but then you miss out on playing series with the same PC). That said, I don't really see why a devoted melee cleric who can't heal effectively (which is in any case almost impossible to do, build-wise) is any more of a problem for the party than a melee fighter who can't heal at all. Also, I feel that party balance is overrated. An unbalanced party can do incredibly well if it just plays to its strengths, rather than trying to shoehorn the PCs into iconic roles. I've played on all-arcane tables (at APL 10-12) that overwhelmed modules that more "balanced" tables found very challenging, because we were so strong on mobility and ranged firepower (and in one case, on divination and illusion) that our melee weakness never came into play.
Paul H 08-20-06, 09:23 AM	Hi My 2 cents worth.... I play a 'Generalist' support character. Not exactly optimised - the oppposite in fact. Dwarf Cleric 3/Warmage4 going Mystic Theurge. Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 13. AC20 (Mithril Shirt +1 Lt Fort, Light Shield +1, Amulet Nat Armour +1, Ring Deflection +1, Dex) One thing I noticed missing from this discussion is the other uses of shileds/armour, not just AC. Eg. My Oskar has Light Fortification on his Mithril Shirt +1 Being Jack of All Trades, he's likely to get a game, though I often have to play down. (Missing access to Wand Alter Self once)! :( I've been party Healer, Arcane Blaster (Practiced Spellcaster Warmage), and front line Tank before. As to the other off topic comments: If I wanted the Ultimate Blaster Caster I'd choose Grey Elf Warmage, or Ranger/Warmage (Fav NME Human), with St 8 De 16 Co 10 In 18 Wi 8 Ch 14. I've recently started Bright Sands Human Cleric going straight into Storm Lord at 6th. His AC reasonably important since he's light fighter type with spells & very special abilities. (And will be able to complete PrC before retiring). Cheers Paul H
Madfox11 08-21-06, 03:49 AM	Also, I feel that party balance is overrated. An unbalanced party can do incredibly well if it just plays to its strengths, rather than trying to shoehorn the PCs into iconic roles. I've played on all-arcane tables (at APL 10-12) that overwhelmed modules that more "balanced" tables found very challenging, because we were so strong on mobility and ranged firepower (and in one case, on divination and illusion) that our melee weakness never came into play. Quoting a situation in which a party of arcane casters only does not proof that you need a balanced party. A group that is composed of one set of tactics will obviously do very well if the adventure favors that set of tactics. They take a risk though, because if the adventure contains encounters that hit the weak spot of that same group they are in a real tight spot.
copper_wyrmling 08-25-06, 01:14 AM	Quoting a situation in which a party of arcane casters only does not proof that you need a balanced party. A group that is composed of one set of tactics will obviously do very well if the adventure favors that set of tactics. They take a risk though, because if the adventure contains encounters that hit the weak spot of that same group they are in a real tight spot. My mention of the all-arcane tables I've played on was just a response to Lupo's example of "five arcane casters and a marshal" as a party where you want people to be able to fill more than one role ;) I was just trying to say that if a party is really strong in a particular area, then that can compensate for a lot of weaknesses - for example, if the party has great sensory abilities and is really good at ranged combat and battlefield control, not having any melee or healing capability often doesn't matter, because the bad guys never get that close to you. Similarly, if you're an archer who can spot and kill the bad guys at 800ft, then pouring large amounts of resources into boosting your AC may not be the best investment - if the party really doesn't have any tanks, that often means everyone is pretty good at ranged combat, and it might be better to take advantage of that strength rather than pretending that you're a frontline fighter and the bard is actually a cleric. I think that "play to your strengths, if you don't have a tank and you're fighting meleers then use all your abilities to keep the combat at range" is a general enough strategy that it's applicable to most scenarios - in open terrain you'd rely more on mobility and spotting them a long way in advance, in dungeons you might want to scout ahead (with spells or skills) and use battlefield control spells that work really well in narrow corridors. I'd imagine it works better at high APLs than low APLs - PCs have more ways to control the terms of the encounter at high APLs - but the OP's character has already made it to L6.
JohnduBois 08-25-06, 10:19 AM	A cleric who doesn't focus on healing is completely misinterpreting their role as party healer. A wizard who doesn't focus on artillery spells is completely misinterpreting their role as the party artillery. A rogue who doesn't focus on trap detection and removal is completely misinterpreting their role as party trapbreaker. These are all true statements, but the practical problem with this is that very few adventuring parties can afford to have party members who only fulfill one, single role. I think that there's a flawed parallel being drawn in this statement. The original statement was that an archer who pumps his AC doesn't understand his role. This is a perfectly legitimate comment to make, as "archer" is not a character class, it is a character role. The list you provide are all character classes, each of which can fill many different roles. To make this statement more fitting to the post you replied to: A healer who doesn't focus on healing is misinterpreting their role (although I will say that when I play my Favored Soul, I sometimes have to repeat more than once that healing is my secondary role, not my primary). An evoker (specialist wizards are usually built for roles) who doesn't have enough artillery spells is misinterpreting their role. A trapbreaker rogue who doens't have max ranks in Search and DD is misinterpreting their role. It's not about the class (especially with the expanding number of base classes) - it's about the role.
trollbill 08-25-06, 11:38 AM	I think that there's a flawed parallel being drawn in this statement. The original statement was that an archer who pumps his AC doesn't understand his role. This is a perfectly legitimate comment to make, as "archer" is not a character class, it is a character role. The list you provide are all character classes, each of which can fill many different roles. To make this statement more fitting to the post you replied to: A healer who doesn't focus on healing is misinterpreting their role (although I will say that when I play my Favored Soul, I sometimes have to repeat more than once that healing is my secondary role, not my primary). An evoker (specialist wizards are usually built for roles) who doesn't have enough artillery spells is misinterpreting their role. A trapbreaker rogue who doens't have max ranks in Search and DD is misinterpreting their role. It's not about the class (especially with the expanding number of base classes) - it's about the role. While you are semantically correct, it seems you have missed the entire point of my post by forcusing on my improper use of metaphors. My point is that, due to the small number of party members and the broad range of abilities necessary to successfully adventure, most adventurers seldom fulfil just one role in a party. Since you can't focus on one role without taking away from another, it is a mistake to narrowly construe a character as only having one role and that not focusing on that one role is a bad idea. If you want to play a highly specialized archer (or any other highly specialized character) you have to rely on everyone else filling those roles you can't. If you find yourself constantly refusing to fulfil other roles in the party because you are so much better at shooting your bow than anything else, then there is something wrong with the build. This is especially true in LG where you may have no idea what roles are covered by your fellow party members until you sit down at the table.
Mommy was an Orc 08-25-06, 01:12 PM	If you find yourself constantly refusing to fulfil other roles in the party because you are so much better at shooting your bow than anything else, then there is something wrong with the build. This is especially true in LG where you may have no idea what roles are covered by your fellow party members until you sit down at the table. I don't think that's true - by the same reasoning, most builds are wrong. Sure, it might be nice if the archer has spent 7K for AC protection and a solid melee weapon by level 6, but that's also the reason that archer isn't wielding a +1 Bow with a +1 enhancement. When the archer is doing an extra 10 hit points per round to his targets, that's a big deal at APL 6. That said, I made my archer build so he's really good at filling the Scout/Trapfinder role. Currently +18 to Search checks at level 6. Only +1 more next level and I can take 10 to find Enervate traps :)
solbergb 08-25-06, 07:16 PM	I'm with Andy on this one. There is a point where being enough better at a specialty than "normal" is a versatility all in itself. You can sometimes take the place of two "hitters" if you do an unusually large amount of damage. The party might also not need any in-combat healing if the enemy is dead before they do much. Sometimes "being good with a bow" carries a bunch of other baggage with it (such characters tend to be strong and dextrous, which means they're decent at balance, jump, swim, climb even hide/move silent and many have fantastic spot scores to improve odds of a long range fight. They're usually fair grapplers in a pinch, can often track and hunt and often have better senses than a human and can operate a wand of cure light wounds). It's just that the "other stuff" is a side effect of being "good with a bow". It wasn't taken at the expense of being good with a bow (as spending most of your cash on defense instead of a balance between defense, offense and utility will do). The cost of spending everything on your bow is also kind of obvious - you can be hosed if you get sundered (or disarmed) and you tend to be very fragile to all kinds of attacks, not just melee attacks (low saves, low hitpoints, low AC). On the flip side, very strong defensive characters can also save party healing, or win unwinnable fights by dragging out the fight till the party can get its act together. While more commonly seen with AC or a mix of AC+miss chance stuff, I've seen one of those usually despised "I have good saves and don't do much else" guys saved us from a TPK when he single-handedly fought the "wrack-monster" that had incapacitated everybody else until we started to recover...10 rounds later. (one other party member was awake most of the time, but not all of it). He even did some damage to the enemy, just enough to not be ignored. I actually find that since most tables in LG are actually 5-6 person tables, you have MORE flexibility to specialize in LG than in an iconic 4 person homegame. But you have to have a plan for when several similar specialists show up to the table. Parties with tons of offense and not much else have to execute that offense to succeed, because they won't get much help from social skills, scouting or incombat healing like a more balanced party might. Parties with great ranged combat but no "tanks" have to use scouting, divination and their own two feet to try to keep the combat "at range" or they need to make somebody capable of "tanking for just a round or two" or even switch off, pooling the "party hitpoints" against the melee monster. Or even buy or summon some animals to buy time. Parties with crappy offense and tons of support need to look around and decide who is being effective in a given fight, and pile on all the support to that character or characters. They also have to plan for fights to take longer and thus faster resource burn - maybe buy a few consumables for this run. Sometimes these unbalanced parties are a blast. I actually find them to be a lot of the appeal of the game. We did War of the Dust with a party that contained three ranged/woodsy characters and a gnome cleric of Farhlangan. That party made more use of stealth, "elfish" type tactics and ranged combat than I've seen in most LG modules, turning several difficult fights into unequal ranged duels via scouting and careful play. I did "Endgame" with a party that had four arcane (including my level 4 sorceress, playing up to level 8) one rougish/cavalry type and one tank. It was also a fun module, although we did have a bad moment when our tank was eaten by a Rhemroraz. Thank goodness for my wand of enlarge and scroll of grease (giving him +15 to his grapple check, which he used to escape and kill the thing, instead of getting swallowed and killed). It was interesting how things change with lots of arcane power backing one hitter in an endurance crawl where you can't unload your whole spell rack in each fight.
trollbill 08-26-06, 11:27 AM	I don't think that's true - by the same reasoning, most builds are wrong. Sure, it might be nice if the archer has spent 7K for AC protection and a solid melee weapon by level 6, but that's also the reason that archer isn't wielding a +1 Bow with a +1 enhancement. When the archer is doing an extra 10 hit points per round to his targets, that's a big deal at APL 6. You're still kinda missing the point. If you so focus on a specialization that you cannot even consider taking on another role, even when it is desperately needed, there is a problem. I don't know what it is about archers in particular, but for some reason, they seem to be less willing than any other build-type to fulfil necessary secondary roles than others. This is, of course, my personal experience and your miliage may vary. More than once I have seen front ranks fall, the archer keep distance with his bow while the enemy then overwhelms the spellcasters because he didn't move up to block the enemy but instead insisted on staying out of it because he was better with his bow even though the spellcasters didn't have his HP & AC. To add insult to injury, after everyone is dead or dying and he is the only one standing, he proudly proclaims he saved the party single-handidly when he finishes off the last of the enemy. Even worse is that this can often come across as cowardly. Most highly-focused archers are fighter-based. Combine high Dex and the ability to wear armor and you get a character with a good AC, good HP, good Fort save and good Reflex save. Add to this that he stands in the second rank like the characters who don't have good AC, good HP and good Fort saves and he has a very strong chance of survival compared to most characters. When the party is in dire circumstances, and the barely scratched archer refuses to take greater risks because he is 'so much better shooting his bow,' you have to wonder how much of that is authentic belief and how much is cowardly rationale. I am not saying all archers, or even most archers, do this. But I have seen it happen, and I think the more you focus on specializing with that bow, the more it creeps into your mindset. If you can avoid that, great, but I can't think of very many archer-only PCs I've played with that hadn't developed this mind set. If my sorcerer can stand front rank because he happens to have the most remaining hit points in the party, surely the archer can too.
Mommy was an Orc 08-26-06, 01:20 PM	insisted on staying out of it because he was better with his bow even though the spellcasters didn't have his HP & AC. To add insult to injury, after everyone is dead or dying and he is the only one standing, he proudly proclaims he saved the party single-handidly when he finishes off the last of the enemy. While I wasn't there, I'd note a couple of things: A lot of the time that spellcasters are in trouble is because they made bad decisions, either through purchases or via tactics. Just because the casters are on the front line, doesn't mean they need to stay there - cast obscuring mist, invisibility, mirror image, shield or any number of defensive spells(scrolls are cheap). Or withdraw to behind the archer. Or in some cases, both. The archer has more hp and AC - but in the next two rounds at say APL 6, he's likely doing somewhere between 60-120 damage vs 20-30 with his other options. A way of doubling your sorcerer's hit points is to kill half the enemy in those next two rounds. Yes, things ended poorly, but what if the archer had moved up and you then all died anyway? Or as an example, someone who is dying can't be patched up because the combat isn't over yet and no one can get past the monster safely - the combat takes longer, so they die. That's the thing - the archer moving up in those situations is not likely to improve the party's situation - it often increases the odds of a TPK, it just takes longer to resolve. If the spellcasters can get behind him, he gets an extra full round of attacks off. Don't get me wrong, I think there are situations where the archer should take on the tank role, but the frontline collapsing is often not one of them - even if it looks like he's being cowardly.
JamesMaissen 08-26-06, 11:36 PM	You're still kinda missing the point. If you so focus on a specialization that you cannot even consider taking on another role, even when it is desperately needed, there is a problem. This is part and parcel of a larger problem. It's when a person is so used to playing a character in a certain way that they cannot take the time to consider alternatives. Whether this is the archer in your example, a barbarian that always charges in, a tripper/other special manuever character that ALWAYS uses the manuever, a mounted character that doesn't realize when they need to NOT rideby, or any other character that for one reason or another has to go outside the normal box that they've built for themselves. You see it more in specialists than others because if they are built really well then their speciality works so often that in most cases this is the best action for them to do, or even when it's not they are able to get away with it (to some extent). The key is to be awake enough to realize when you are out of your element and then act how the tactics force you for the team to prevail. These times can make for the more memorable fights too. You have the 'briar rabbit' moments as I like to think of them: whether it was walking to a square so that a pair of rogues could 5' into flank with my wizard and stop hitting the poor fighter (gotta love gnome wizards and pure hps), or purposefully getting grappled by a monster for the party rogue.. sometimes the best tactical move for you isn't your first, or fifth thought. -James PS: The other posters have been more commenting on a tendancy of character designers to broaden themselves into 'sidelines' at the expense of their 'bread and butter' which is also very dangerous and unsound.
Japangirl 08-27-06, 02:34 PM	I've had good experiences with ranger-archers going into melee with my rogue, due to lack of other melee types. A rogue with no flank is not a good damage dealer, after all, so ranger + arrowmind took care of that. We just killed things fast enough that the lack of AC/HPs that tanks bring wasn't as big a deal. If enough archers were rangers, they could use their bows in melee and then fulfill spellcaster-protector and archer roles both.
Mommy was an Orc 08-27-06, 10:14 PM	I've had good experiences with ranger-archers going into melee with my rogue, due to lack of other melee types. A rogue with no flank is not a good damage dealer, after all, so ranger + arrowmind took care of that. We just killed things fast enough that the lack of AC/HPs that tanks bring wasn't as big a deal. If enough archers were rangers, they could use their bows in melee and then fulfill spellcaster-protector and archer roles both. That's extremely dangerous for an archer to do - all that has to happen in that situation is that your opponent attempts to sunder the archer's bow, and odds are it is gone... Sure, a lot of DMs might not do that to a player, but metagaming that the DM won't do that to you isn't exactly fair.
Japangirl 08-28-06, 02:55 AM	Sunder the ranger's bow, sunder the small rogue's tiny-size daggers, sunder the barbarian's two-handed sword. It's the same thing and the same money down the drain. It's a risk a melee person takes every time they do battle, not one unique to archers in any way. To use that as an excuse to avoid melee combat is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that.
Mommy was an Orc 08-28-06, 08:48 AM	Sunder the ranger's bow, sunder the small rogue's tiny-size daggers, sunder the barbarian's two-handed sword. It's the same thing and the same money down the drain. It's a risk a melee person takes every time they do battle, not one unique to archers in any way. To use that as an excuse to avoid melee combat is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that. Most weapons, particularly at higher level, have a lot more hit points and hardness than a bow and the archer usually has a lot more money invested in their weapon than either of the other characters. You can't exactly get a bow made of adamantine.
trollbill 08-28-06, 11:08 AM	While I wasn't there, I'd note a couple of things: A lot of the time that spellcasters are in trouble is because they made bad decisions, either through purchases or via tactics. Just because the casters are on the front line, doesn't mean they need to stay there - cast obscuring mist, invisibility, mirror image, shield or any number of defensive spells(scrolls are cheap). Exactly how many battles have you fought where the entire party was able to avoid melee contact with the enemy for the entire battle? At some point, someone is going to have to engage the enemy or the enemy gets to choose who they want to engage with, and if they are smart, it will be a squishy spellcaster who will go down quickly. P.S. Spellcaster must love playing with you if your philosophy is that if a spellcaster is in trouble it must be their own fault so you shouldn't have to lift a finger to help them. Or withdraw to behind the archer. Rather pointless if the archer then withdraws behind the spellcasters to get out of reach of the enemy. The archer has more hp and AC - but in the next two rounds at say APL 6, he's likely doing somewhere between 60-120 damage vs 20-30 with his other options. A way of doubling your sorcerer's hit points is to kill half the enemy in those next two rounds. Yes, things ended poorly, but what if the archer had moved up and you then all died anyway? I understand your point and might agree with it if the archer were near death at the end of the battle. But when they walk away with barely a scratch and the rest of the party is dead or dying, I think he could have afforded to go into melee for at least a few rounds to save some spellcaster butt. The real issue here is whether or not the archer carefully considered whether it was worth him going into melee or not under the given circumstances rather than flat refuse any option but sit back and shoot because thats what he always does, because that's 'personally' what works best for him, i.e. he only considers what personally works best of him, not what works best for the party. Even a chaotic neutral character understands the benefits of teamwork, or he wouldn't bother being a member of a team. This is part and parcel of a larger problem. It's when a person is so used to playing a character in a certain way that they cannot take the time to consider alternatives. Whether this is the archer in your example, a barbarian that always charges in, a tripper/other special manuever character that ALWAYS uses the manuever, a mounted character that doesn't realize when they need to NOT rideby, or any other character that for one reason or another has to go outside the normal box that they've built for themselves. I agree. It's part of a larger problem. It's just that for some reason, this problem seems to occur with greater frequency amoungst archers. Maybe its because archers are more likely than any build-type to be uber-specialists. I don't really know. But it is a phenomenon that I have observed.
Drezden 08-28-06, 01:13 PM	Much as I hate to say this :), I agree with Andy. The best archer is a specialized one. Archers are tremendous damage dealers who should concentrate on firing their bows and taking out the enemies quickly. For me, the only exception is when you are fighting things where archers can't get past their DR, maybe no adamantine arrows. As for the example of the archers and the spellcasters, I don't know why it would fall on the archer to "save" the spellcasters; maybe they should save themselves. Most archers are pretty squishy too - they are designed as back line characters as much as spellcasters are. Plus, if the archer went down trying to protect the spellcasters, could they have defeated the remaining monsters? Maybe instead of the archer being the only standing survivor, you would have just had a TPK. BTW - I have seen many, many combats resolved at range. My primary is a blaster wizard and I have played with several good archers - usually if we won initiative (which was quite often) - the bad guys were quite wounded (several dead) before they even went. If the encounter was at range, well more often than not the bad guys never made it close. Daren
Nutation 08-28-06, 01:43 PM	This is part and parcel of a larger problem. It's when a person is so used to playing a character in a certain way that they cannot take the time to consider alternatives... I agree. It's part of a larger problem. It's just that for some reason, this problem seems to occur with greater frequency amoungst archers. Maybe its because archers are more likely than any build-type to be uber-specialists. I don't really know. But it is a phenomenon that I have observed. I think this is true. Prepared casters are used to juggling their spell mix, and spontaneous casters have to learn to be versatile anyway. Spirited charge folks only have their mounts and a clear path 50% of the time. But, archers can "usually" do their thing. Shock troopers and trippers can usually do their thing also, it seems to me, have you noticed similar stubbornness in either of those archetypes? Though, the shocktrooper can usually just beat on things in place if supported from behind, and the tripper can cork with Combat Expertise.
trollbill 08-28-06, 01:45 PM	As for the example of the archers and the spellcasters, I don't know why it would fall on the archer to "save" the spellcasters; maybe they should save themselves. Thank you for PROVING my point by reiterating the mentality of archers that I so despise: If anyone is in trouble it must be their own fault so I shouldn't have to lift a finger to help them. Afterall, I built a character who has the HP (because the build is fighter based), Fort save, and AC (because of super high DEX) of a frontline fighter, but doesn't actually have to be endangered as much as them because I picked a weapon that forces me to fight in the second rank with the spellcasters who have half my HP and AC, so they could do this too. No one told them to play a character whose strengths are in supporting the party, and not just themselves. They should learn to spell TEAM with an 'I.' Sorry, but all this argument does is reinforce my perception that highly focused archers tend to be selfish cowards.
Drezden 08-28-06, 01:58 PM	First, most archers don't have a lot of HPs - many of them are Wood Elves with 10 or 12 Con. Most have Ranger levels (d8) in there to some degree. Many arcane casters - especially with False Life - will have more HPs than your typical archer. This can also be true for AC depending on level and what the encounter is. With Mage Armor (or greater), Shield, Alter Self, etc., many casters can have a much better AC than your typical archer who is wearing light armor and little else. The bottom line is that an archer is a very effective, but narrow build. You can't expect him to front-line any more than you can expect a wizard to front line. The casters who might need the protection should pick spells accordingly - perhaps focusing on controlling the battlefield or summoning monsters to help out with meatshield duties. They can adapt a lot easier than the archer can. Daren Thank you for PROVING my point by reiterating the mentality of archers that I so despise: If anyone is in trouble it must be their own fault so I shouldn't have to lift a finger to help them. Afterall, I built a character who has the HP (because the build is fighter based), Fort save, and AC (because of super high DEX) of a frontline fighter, but doesn't actually have to be endangered as much as them because I picked a weapon that forces me to fight in the second rank with the spellcasters who have half my HP and AC, so they could do this too. No one told them to play a character whose strengths are in supporting the party, and not just themselves. They should learn to spell TEAM with an 'I.' Sorry, but all this argument does is reinforce my perception that highly focused archers tend to be selfish cowards.
trollbill 08-28-06, 02:41 PM	Again, you are proving some of my points. First, most archers don't have a lot of HPs - many of them are Wood Elves with 10 or 12 Con. Most have Ranger levels (d8) in there to some degree. Many arcane casters - especially with False Life - will have more HPs than your typical archer. This can also be true for AC depending on level and what the encounter is. With Mage Armor (or greater), Shield, Alter Self, etc., many casters can have a much better AC than your typical archer who is wearing light armor and little else. This is an innaccurate analogy. If the archer's philosphy that the best defense is a good offense is correct, then this should apply to other classes, as well, i.e. if a total focused offensive archer is a good thing, then so should a total focused offensive spellcaster. Yet you are comparing a total focused archer to a generalist wizard. If it is a waste for a total focused offensive archer to spend money on upping his AC when it can be put to better use upping his offensive archer abilities, then it is a waste for a total focused offensive caster to spend valuable offensive spell slots on Mage Armor and False Life. The fact is that an archer who doesn't spend anything on defense has a better defense than a spellcaster who doesn't spend anything on defense. The bottom line is that an archer is a very effective, but narrow build. You can't expect him to front-line any more than you can expect a wizard to front line. The casters who might need the protection should pick spells accordingly - perhaps focusing on controlling the battlefield or summoning monsters to help out with meatshield duties. They can adapt a lot easier than the archer can. And whose fault is that? There is no reason why an archer can't be just as versitile as everyone else. They just choose not to be and then justify this by pointing out how offensively effective they are. The problem is that if this justification is good for archers, its just as good for everyone else. Yet your arguments keep centering around how everyone else should have to be versatile but an acher shouldn't. I find the entire concept that spellcasters should have to versitile but archers shouldn't to be highly hypocritical.
Drezden 08-28-06, 03:19 PM	The bottom line is that some classes/builds are more versatile than others. Wizards (who just need to change selected spells) are very versatile. Archers are not. Changing equipment is not an option. Changing spells is (if you prepare, rather than select them). Also, not all classes are as effective when dedicated solely to offensive. Some builds/archetypes work better than others. 2 handed Power Attackers work. Archers work. Some builds just don't. A dedicated archer is a (ranged) damage machine. That is his job. He usually does it very well. Leave him alone and let him do his job. Trying to make him some second rank tank is not a good use of his abilities. You mentioned having 2 spellcasters, who else was in the party? What were their jobs? There are plenty of other character types that are ill conceived and ineffective. The archer isn't. He works. I would rather have a dedicated archer, than one who tries to diversify and subtracts from his main job. 3.5 DnD, as played in LG, is an offensive wins game. Kill the monsters as fast as possible and things get less dangerous. Daren
trollbill 08-28-06, 04:21 PM	The bottom line is that some classes/builds are more versatile than others. Wizards (who just need to change selected spells) are very versatile. Archers are not. Changing equipment is not an option. Changing spells is (if you prepare, rather than select them). The argument originally started with the comment that an archer who spends money on upping his AC is not doing his job. It cost about the same to get a +1 Mithral Shirt as a +1 Composite Longbow. Here you have a chance for the archer to be more versitile by upping his AC (and thus being more effective if he should have to engage in melee) just as other classes can be more versitile by changing their spell or equipment selection. So what is so hard about that? Is it more effective for the archer to buy the +1 Composite Longbow than the +1 Mithral Shirt? Yes. But what about when he gets another 2,000 gp? Is it better for him to spend it on that +1 Mithral Shirt now, or save up another 4,000 GP to upgrade his bow to a +1 Shocking Composite Longbow? That becomes more questionable as the cost difference between upping offense and upping defense increases. I will also note that a spellcaster can only change to non-offensive spells if he spent the money putting said spells in his spell book. We are talking about characters that do nothing but focus on offense. So again this is an innaccurate comparison. Also, not all classes are as effective when dedicated solely to offensive. Some builds/archetypes work better than others. 2 handed Power Attackers work. Archers work. Some builds just don't. I will note that the 2-handed power attacker at least has the side benefit of standing in between the enemy and the squishy members of the party. In this regard he is fulfilling 2 roles without sacrificing any of his offensive capability. The Archer fulfils only 1. A dedicated archer is a (ranged) damage machine. That is his job. He usually does it very well. Leave him alone and let him do his job. Trying to make him some second rank tank is not a good use of his abilities. The only thing I am trying to make people do here is be willing to fulfil other party roles when filling that role is vitally important to the survival of the party. The uber focus of the archer seems counter-intuitive to this, even though it should be just as intuitive to any give character regardless of the build. You mentioned having 2 spellcasters, who else was in the party? What were their jobs? There are plenty of other character types that are ill conceived and ineffective. I have no intensions of wasting more time with 'what if' arguments. Unless you are arguing the there is NEVER a time when it is more effective for the archer to put down his bow and pick up his sword, then my point still stands. Sometimes you have to be willing to take on other rolls. If you are playing a character that gives you the mind-set that there is no such time, then there is a problem. Being an archer seems to do that more than any other specialist. I don't have a problem with a highly focused archer if he is willing to take on other roles when he is the best equiped to do so. But when he pendantically refuses to take on any other role even when he is the best member of the party to do so, using the justification that he is more effective with his bow than the secondary job required of him, then, No Sir, I will not leave him alone. I would rather have a dedicated archer, than one who tries to diversify and subtracts from his main job. 3.5 DnD, as played in LG, is an offensive wins game. Kill the monsters as fast as possible and things get less dangerous. And I would rather have a versitile archer, than a dedicated one with the mind set that all they should ever be expected to do is shoot their bow. The bow is a very effective offensive weapon, but it doesn't solve everything.
Japangirl 08-28-06, 06:49 PM	Most weapons, particularly at higher level, have a lot more hit points and hardness than a bow and the archer usually has a lot more money invested in their weapon than either of the other characters. You can't exactly get a bow made of adamantine. Many high level weapons have a lot of hitpoints. The daggers my rogues uses, on the other hand, have fewer hitpoints than a bow. That doesn't stop her from charging (figuratively, she tumbles instead) into combat. I just hope things decide that hitting me is more useful than killing my weapons, because I can get a Raise Dead but I can't get my sacred dagger (soon to be wounding, sacred) or my wounding dagger (hopefully eventually to be holy, wounding) back. As for the hitpoint issue . . . rogues have d6 hit dice. Rangers have d8s, fighters have d10s, and barbarians have d12s. Archers are beefier tanks than rogues, but I've never refused to take on that job when I was the best option. Archers obviously shouldn't be tanks: they aren't designed for it or really all that great at it. But if they are the best option (ie the only ones up are a wizard, a sorceror, and an archer), they can do it and probably should do it.
JamesMaissen 08-28-06, 07:13 PM	Again, you are proving some of my points. And whose fault is that? There is no reason why an archer can't be just as versitile as everyone else. I think you're too tied to whatever emotions have been stirred by your bad experience. I think you are associating things together and then self-reinforcing it. This does a disservice to those archers out there that are thinking for the team as well as a disservice to your message. People speak in absolutes on boards that never exist in reality. Take things with a small grain of salt, or you gain nothing from them. To pick on one thing.. I certainly believe that it is sometimes the case that the best thing you can do is to simply lay down damage. It may not look as heroic, but it can be the only way out at times. There may be some moves that are automatic, but normally there are plenty of choices out there. It's a game of balancing. Going to the original post.. the best move is normally to understand what you are bringing to the group. Make sure you deliver that first and foremost. You can shore up weaknesses, but shouldn't do so at the cost of what you claim to deliver for the group. -James
DuctShuiTengu 08-28-06, 11:13 PM	for the most part, I have to agree with Bill. There's a lot of different things that any given mod may require the party to be good at, to the point where focusing on only one of them isn't usually a good idea. In a similar vein, spreading yourself too thin trying to do everything leaves you slightly screwed as well. (These two are more than a little related - if 5 of your usual 6 people in the party are focusing on just one thing, even if they're each focusing on a different "just one thing," the 6th man is usually left spreading themself way too thin to be effective) Now, a lot of these things are - as has been previously noted - related. For instance, most tanks are intended to both deal damage and keep the enemy's fighters off of more vulnerable party members. (Incidentally, this is part of why I don't like cavalry characters. Yes, you can do massive damage to them by charging with your lance, but what else do you bring to the table?) My archer can also scout and track effectively thanks to his ranger levels and high numbers of skill points. A cleric can easily cover healing and buffing and still have something left over for tanking and/or undead turning. In other situations, a little tweaking one way or another allows a character to significantly improve in some areas without hurting their ability to do other things. I've played with at least one Dwarf Fighter who managed to act as an effective trap-finder/trapspringer by dropping a couple extra points into Intelligence and taking a level of Rogue for the cost of 4 hit-points and a point of BAB. To be fair, if you're consistantly playing with the same group of characters, you can generally afford for one (or even two) people to specialize, but if - as is often the case with LG - you can't be sure of what the rest of the group will bring to the table, it's generally a good idea to build your character to be able to cover multiple bases. Of course, even with all this preparation, sometimes you're still going to run into situations where you have to do something that's outside of your usual area(s) of expertise for the good of the party. My Archer has had to do things like run up to assist the Monk in not getting his brain ripped out by a Mind Flayer, or in one case, charge the mounted Vampire to keep him from Ride-by-Attacking the party again the next round, stand behind the primary tank hitting them with a wand of cure light wounds over and over because all the enemies in the room had DR 10/Adamantine and I'd loaned my adamantine greatsword to said tank, and run past enemies for the sole purpose of provoking attacks of opportunity so that they wouldn't be able to use them on other people. And as hectic as all of those fights were, and as close to death as I came in several of them (the vampire one ended up being more than just close, but the rest of the party survived because of it), they were still a :censored: of a lot of fun (okay, maybe not the one where I was left with use of the happy stick being my only contribution to the combat). But yeah, sometimes you have to be willing to ignore your usual areas of expertise because the party really needs something else and you're the one who can provide it.
trollbill 08-29-06, 11:07 AM	I think you're too tied to whatever emotions have been stirred by your bad experience. I think you are associating things together and then self-reinforcing it. This does a disservice to those archers out there that are thinking for the team as well as a disservice to your message. People speak in absolutes on boards that never exist in reality. Take things with a small grain of salt, or you gain nothing from them. I think I already admitted that my comments are based on my personal experiences and that they do not apply to all highly focused archers. The intent is not to do a disservice to these archers, or even suggest they shouldn't be played, but rather to suggest that a certain and unfortunately common mindset amoungst highly focused archers is a bad thing. I have experienced the following when playing with focused Archers in the RPGA (and I haven't played all that much): Watched a high Init Ranger-based archer move from the front rank to the back so that the monster couldn't charge him, thus allowing the monster to charge the flat-footed wizard. Seen many other similar situations where the archers high Init and fast movement allowed him to leave far more vulnerable party members high and dry while he moved to a safe shooting range. Watched the party meatshields go down and the monsters engage and wail on the spellcasters knocking them down to single digit HP and still see the focused Archer with 40 HP and a 20 AC refuse to engage the monsters to give the spellcasters a chance to withdraw, heal and use their spells. Everyone went down but the archer who then proudly boasted how he defeated the monsters all by himself and wasn't scratched. Had a 2nd level fighter based archer and a 3rd level ranger based archer insist the first level druid and first level cleric take front rank because 'they were so much more effective with their bows.' So, yes, certainly my experiences have colored my opinion on the matter and I freely admit others may not have had these experiences. But I have seen them enough to feel they are a factor that should be considered. And it doesn't help any when I see people trying to defend the actions of archers with the statement, 'if another party member is in trouble, it must be their own fault so they should have to get out of it themselves.' Such a statement is antithetical to concept of teamwork that is integral of D&D. Again, I am not here to bash highly focused archers, but rather to bash a particular mindset that seems common (though not universal) with highly focused archers. I'm not even sure if the problem is that being a highly focused archer gives a tendancy towards this mindset, or if there is something about players that have this mindset that leads them to play highly focused archers. To pick on one thing.. I certainly believe that it is sometimes the case that the best thing you can do is to simply lay down damage. It may not look as heroic, but it can be the only way out at times. There may be some moves that are automatic, but normally there are plenty of choices out there. I never disagreed with that. Only that such an option was valid 100% of the time. It's a game of balancing. Going to the original post.. the best move is normally to understand what you are bringing to the group. Make sure you deliver that first and foremost. You can shore up weaknesses, but shouldn't do so at the cost of what you claim to deliver for the group. Again, I don't disagree. But I do have one question. How many other build-types do you know of that only bring 1 thing to the table?
Reylance 08-29-06, 03:34 PM	Actually, Bill, I can't really fault the archers in some of the situations you describe. For example, in the fight when the meat shields were down, it's clear things are going bad. At that point, consider, how can we win this fight? By then, you're starting to think if one more person goes down, it's a TPK, and that's the person who must stay up. Could anyone but the archer have dealt enough damage to defeat the monsters? At the very least, you were talking about the other characters doing two rounds for withdrawing and healing, and in two rounds, a monster capable of taking down a meatshield could probably do the same to a 20 AC, 40 HP archer. And four person APL 2 tables are always tricky. In the table you describe, the druid's animal companion should have been in front. The archers are probably doing 1d8+3-5 with masterwork strength bows, shooting twice a round, and the party is best off if they're able to do that constantly. If the archers stood in front and fought in melee, they're probably down 2-4 points to hit and getting half the attacks for the same or slightly better damage. And said druid and cleric are also going to be up front if they're going to do anything to contribute to combat. At higher levels, if no one is right to be the tank, you don't select the best of six poor options to be the tank, you play different, play smart. The spellcasters summon creatures or other players use bags of tricks to create obstacles. Spellcasters focus on battlefield control spells. And then, everyone focuses on killing the enemies at range.
trollbill 08-29-06, 04:55 PM	Actually, Bill, I can't really fault the archers in some of the situations you describe. For example, in the fight when the meat shields were down, it's clear things are going bad. At that point, consider, how can we win this fight? By then, you're starting to think if one more person goes down, it's a TPK, and that's the person who must stay up. Could anyone but the archer have dealt enough damage to defeat the monsters? At the very least, you were talking about the other characters doing two rounds for withdrawing and healing, and in two rounds, a monster capable of taking down a meatshield could probably do the same to a 20 AC, 40 HP archer. And four person APL 2 tables are always tricky. In the table you describe, the druid's animal companion should have been in front. The archers are probably doing 1d8+3-5 with masterwork strength bows, shooting twice a round, and the party is best off if they're able to do that constantly. If the archers stood in front and fought in melee, they're probably down 2-4 points to hit and getting half the attacks for the same or slightly better damage. And said druid and cleric are also going to be up front if they're going to do anything to contribute to combat. At higher levels, if no one is right to be the tank, you don't select the best of six poor options to be the tank, you play different, play smart. The spellcasters summon creatures or other players use bags of tricks to create obstacles. Spellcasters focus on battlefield control spells. And then, everyone focuses on killing the enemies at range. Sigh. I said I wasn't going to keep playing the what if/second guessing game and I meant it. You were not there. You do not have all the facts. And I am not going to waste my time giving you all the facts so that the D&D board online wolves can put it under a microscope and do their best to shred the details while completely ignoring the point. I have already made my point, clearly and distinctly, despite the many attempts at obfuscation made by the many pointless nitpicks. So you all go right ahead and keep on blindly justifying why you think that archers who refuse to take risks even when the party desperately needs them to, aren't selfish and cowardly. Just don't expect me to play at your table, because I am tired of throwing myself in the lions mouth to protect archers who won't do the same for me.
Samwise 08-29-06, 07:20 PM	Actually, Bill, I can't really fault the archers in some of the situations you describe. I can. I play a wizard in LG and played a psion in LA. Low hp, lower AC. Yet when things get THAT bad, I walk up to take the one hit per fight I could without dying instantly (risking it being a crit of course) just to give another PC one round of breathing room. When you sit at a table with me, I expect you to be willing to do the same. I don't care what your alignment is, I don't care what your background is, I don't care if you are "just role-playing your PC." I am a player just like you, and "fun" ends for me way before having my character thrown away so someone else can indulge himself. I play D&D for very specific reasons, and seeing who can manage the best Diplomacy-style double-cross is not one of them. I'll walk before doing that again. And if it leaves a table short or unable to play, that is unfortunate, but . . . My PC is more "effective" when he knows everyone else has his back, and I have to "role-play" my code which pledges everyone to the goal of everyone coming back. Neat the way those work for everyone.
clannagh 08-29-06, 07:40 PM	Most archers can be quite versatile without too much detriment to the shooting. A level of ranger gives a favored enemy (undead, human or animal are always nice) and allows the character to use ranger spell wands including cure wands. Items like bucklers and mithral chain add ac at not cost to shooting. Fighter types can even invest a feat in weapon finesse for good mellee attacks.
Cynric 08-29-06, 07:53 PM	This is sounding more and more like the "discussion" I have been having with local players recently where everyone wants to play some sort of funky prestige class or combination of classes, yet continuously bemoans the lack of iconic roles in a party. Those iconic roles can be good to play, especially when the players build some character into their characters without forgetting their role in the party, or who can best fit a rol. The amount of times where my MULTICLASSED druid and his animal companion have had to play frontline and sole healer because nobody has a tank or cleric because they are boring is absolutley astounding.:confused:
Mommy was an Orc 08-29-06, 07:55 PM	I can. I play a wizard in LG and played a psion in LA. Low hp, lower AC. Yet when things get THAT bad, I walk up to take the one hit per fight I could without dying instantly (risking it being a crit of course) just to give another PC one round of breathing room. When you sit at a table with me, I expect you to be willing to do the same. I don't care what your alignment is, I don't care what your background is, I don't care if you are "just role-playing your PC." I am a player just like you, and "fun" ends for me way before having my character thrown away so someone else can indulge himself. I play D&D for very specific reasons, and seeing who can manage the best Diplomacy-style double-cross is not one of them. Of course, what's funny about this is that my archer has put himself at considerable risk to save Sam's Wizard twice so far and he's yet to return the favor by memorizing the spells I want him to ;)
Puggle Halfwine 08-30-06, 03:45 AM	This is sounding more and more like the "discussion" I have been having with local players recently where everyone wants to play some sort of funky prestige class or combination of classes, yet continuously bemoans the lack of iconic roles in a party. Which is why my archer is more than willing to tank if our as-yet unnamed sword and board tank drops... teamwork people!
Samwise 08-30-06, 01:35 PM	Of course, what's funny about this is that my archer has put himself at considerable risk to save Sam's Wizard twice so far and he's yet to return the favor by memorizing the spells I want him to ;) It's not my fault I don't know those spells! I'd be happy to whack you with my wand of mage armor or protection from evil if it would help. But my badgers have saved everyone's posterior! They've kept the badguys from swarming several archers more than once, including you. (Except when we are trapped in an adventure where EVERYTHING flies except us!)
Samwise 08-30-06, 01:41 PM	This is sounding more and more like the "discussion" I have been having with local players recently where everyone wants to play some sort of funky prestige class or combination of classes, yet continuously bemoans the lack of iconic roles in a party. . . . <twitches savagely> I see MwaO passed on talking about the Class A horror story of this we both got trapped in. But that leads into another rant about PC builds that are useless or severely weak until certain levels. GAH!
Mommy was an Orc 08-30-06, 02:37 PM	"Always play up" says the Swashbuckler mix 5. I think we were 3-5s and 2-4s, so we ended up playing APL 6, thinking that he must have been tweaked. My archer was the party 'cleric' as he was the only one capable of using a Wand of CLW. Round 1 of the first combat, he moves 30' towards the archers and then deliberately falls prone. Round 2, he stays prone and does nothing. So the archers shoot Sam, the spellcaster. Sam goes unconcious. Things got worse from there. I think I did more damage with one arrow shot than he did the entire mod. Luckily, he was the only one who died. <twitches savagely> I see MwaO passed on talking about the Class A horror story of this we both got trapped in. But that leads into another rant about PC builds that are useless or severely weak until certain levels. GAH!
Samwise 08-30-06, 02:59 PM	And the Monk 4 became out frontliner, supported by my badgers. I think he took more damage than all the monsters we killed! Fortunately, I was still 5th level at the time, and you remembered that my Glitterdust is a conjuration. That was worth two extra failed saves for the bad guys after you sucked up those AoOs to revive me. MwaO plays a vicious support/archer character. It drives me crazy as a DM, but as long as I get to use him to make adventures easier when I play, I'll deal with it. :P
clik_ml 08-30-06, 04:20 PM	Heh, maybe we need a swashbuckler-hater thread (or just horror stories). I've played a mod with a level 2-3 swashbuckler who almost exclusively used a sling as his weapon to keep out of harm's way (a bow would be too expensive I guess). His most significant contribution to any combat was healing the enemy in the middle of what was nearly a TPK. That is to say a negative contribution. I like dipping 1 swashbuckler level if I'm going to need weapon finesse anyway since it blows away a fighter level.... but I haven't met a swashbuckler centered character that I've approved of yet.
Mommy was an Orc 08-30-06, 04:52 PM	I like dipping 1 swashbuckler level if I'm going to need weapon finesse anyway since it blows away a fighter level.... but I haven't met a swashbuckler centered character that I've approved of yet. They're pretty hard to make work. There's a big void from levels 4-9 in terms of specials. Level 3 isn't that hot either, though it is a Rogue munchkin trap - there's almost no reason at all that a Rogue should go to 3rd in Swashbuckler.
Paul H 08-30-06, 06:24 PM	Hi Certainly an 'interesting' discussion, this! My Dwarf Clr/Warmage died in one mod when we encountered a Swarm with SR, the other Dwarf (Ftr 2) carried my unconcious dying body over his shoulder. Risked his character to save me. Two other party members in safe area just chatted amongst themselves, not delaying their iniative to heal me when safe . (One was a Druid 2, with orisons left & I had wand CLW declared). End round -10HP. Dead, along with main cleric. At least rest party clubbed together for our raise deads, but it shouldn't have happened. Same character (Clr 3 [Magic/Trickery]/Warmage 4) has been front line fighter when playing down APL4. (To get a game). I had best HP & AC (AC 20). Don't even have a proper melee weapon. (Club). Again - we had Archer type on our table, but he moved where needed. Number level 1/2 characters that mod, Ranger & my Oskar playing down. Players should do what they can for the party, even if it's not their main role. If an archer thinks that just one more shot would kill big bad monster, then fine - but to just run away because " I don't have to outrun it - I just have to outrun you.." is another thing entirely. Cheers Paul H
Cynric 08-30-06, 07:21 PM	Try this for a horror story regarding archers. My archer is the only thing hurting the vampire spawn (go the special material arrows). The monk who is keeping the guy of me by blocking his charge line (APL2 no less), suddenly decides that he is no good up there and withdraws away from the Vamp Spawn. Strangley enough, the vampire Spawn then charges and kills my archer with the dreaded level drain at APL2 craziness. Hence, I do not play an archer. Plus I have a great desire for Iconic roles being filled in any party, it just makes things a lot less messy.
Reylance 08-31-06, 02:25 PM	I like dipping 1 swashbuckler level if I'm going to need weapon finesse anyway since it blows away a fighter level.... but I haven't met a swashbuckler centered character that I've approved of yet. Not a pure swashbuckler, but one of my characters will eventually be Rgr3/Sws3/Ftr1/Champion of Corellon2/Wildrunner6, and I think the character will be effective. Lots of attacks with extra damage, lots of useful skills, just don't give me elementals. For now, though, I'm just a mounted tank (the warhorse being a far more effective combatant than I).
solbergb 09-14-06, 07:57 PM	Hm, some comments. If an archer moves, his damage drops by a factor of 2 to 4 depending on his level (ie. 1/2 to 1/4 of his "real" damage). Therefore asking an archer to move into harms way is asking him to not contribute for a round, then expose himself to disarm/trip/grapple or sunder. If he has to draw a melee weapon, now he's stuck at 1/2 to 2/3 of his normal damage for the rest of the fight. This is not something a normal warrior has to put up with (you can attack with weapons while prone, you can attack with light weapons in a grapple, your weapons, even light ones, are harder to disarm than a bow and it is far less likely that a significant portion of your wealth is tied up in a wooden nonweapon that everyone knows will castrate you if you lose it) It's actually a bigger deal than having the wizard move up to take the hit. The wizard can still drop off a big spell when he moves, and most wizards have far superior options than an archer for disengaging when it is time to back off again. (battlefield control spells, vision blocking spells, teleport spells, etc). An archer 10' away from a 15' reach monster is essentially screwed. At best he might attempt tumbling away, but if he takes even a movement AOO, his bow might be left on the ground next to the monster. A wizard in the same situation can pop off an obscuring mist and stroll away. I have no patience for archers that run away unless by doing so they ensure that they can fire unimpeded for the rest of the fight (and even then, its a judgement call). Generally a good archer will shift 5' a round, full attacking every round. The fight moves around as it will, he's rooted to the spot (similar to a warmage using metamagic). The important thing though is to set expectations early. If the party can't tank, it can't tank. If the party can only tank by vastly degrading its offense, that's usually the same as "not being able to tank." Find another way of winning fights. Such a party is either all archers or heavy on spellcasters. Spellcasters can interfere with enemy movements and attacks, as a rule, or they can buff the toughest noncontributor to offense to be a meatshield. (that person may be an archer, if there are better archers or if the spellcasters have very potent offensive spells). Frankly I don't find the "meat shield wall" to work all that well in many combats. This may be because in my region a lot of battles take place outdoors, where they just go around any hard targets anyway, meaning you need battlefield control magic or mobility to keep the squishies safe anyway (and the former is better, cause it lets the archers and metamagicking spont casters full attack :)). One thing that can help is to mount everybody. An archer can fire with only minor penalties if his mount doesn't move too far, and a spont caster can do a full round cast with no concentration check if his mount stays under its movement speed that round. In areas where mounts are impractical, I've made very good use of tenser's disk as a substitute (although I've heard some judges impose balance checks...seems odd to me given that treasure doesn't fall off the disks when you move, but YYMV with judges, since rules don't say either way). (whose archer is a lousy tank, similar in toughness to an ordinary rogue, but can do a variety of support things if his offense isn't winning the fight. 90% of the time though, it's best to keep him shooting, and his amazing alertness skills often shape the way the battle is in the first place, starting it at range and thus the lack of a melee wall is irrelevant, at least for a while. He's sometimes in front...because he's scouting. It's not a position he likes to fight from, even though he has from time to time. If a fight starts with him in front, the party is supposed to come to him and block, or he's supposed to run back to the party luring the monsters into disaster. If it can't do either, he'll transpose the best tank into where he's standing....)
UMiskatonic 09-20-06, 03:18 PM	It seems to me, that the key is to know when it's not working. MANY LG players are really bad at this. Most of the horror stories you hear have this as the cause. Ex) We were up against a faction of the Temple of Elemental Evil, which we knew about. Our wizard loaded up on enchantment spells. The clerics made the saves, and the elementals were immune. His lack of contribution nearly killed us all, and we failed to stop their plans, which made later mods harder. If you are underwater, if you don't have the arrows to punch through DR, you need to do something else. If arrows don't work, you're in a tornado or something, get out your morningstar and tower shield, and fight defensively until the wizard solves your problem. So, to get back to the OP, AC is NOT more important than being a good archer. However, once you are doing good damage, you also need to make sure you cover your bases. I recommend: alchemical items (you'll hit, and avoid DR) spiked gauntlet (free AOs!) spiked gauntlet (use in a grapple) crossbow (underwater, also disposable vs. sunder-types) a blunt weapon a slashing weapon a tower shield (seriously, the cheapest +4 AC around)
solbergb 09-22-06, 12:33 PM	Yeah that's good advice. One reason my archer got quickdraw early was to make alchemical, blunt (club) and slashing (throwing axes) an option when piercing wasn't getting the job done. It also meant in any situation where an AOO would be nice he could fill his hand with a club and not have any table variation on whether a spiked gaunt would work. (in grapples...he just grapples. He's strong and fullBAB, or nearly so. If it is too big to grapple, he punches it. Spiked gauntlets are too silly for him to consider, mostly cause he's built to not need them) One reason he knows arrow mind is because underwater forces you into melee ranges if you want to hit anything with a projectile weapon. He can rack it on underwater adventures. The other thing about AC is there are really 3 levels. 1. totally dumped 2. Roughly normal for your category of character (light armor+buckler, heavy armor without shield and heavy armor with shield are the main variants) 3. Good enough to work versus almost anything. #1 is free #2 is usually cheap #3 is usually very expensive Unless AC is the main schtick, I tend toward #2, with #1 on characters where it costs significant resources to get into the #2 range (eg, a sorcerer who must burn spells known, spell slots and buy 1-2 fairly expensive items to keep it up all the time)
JamesMaissen 09-22-06, 12:51 PM	The other thing about AC is there are really 3 levels. 1. totally dumped 2. Roughly normal for your category of character (light armor+buckler, heavy armor without shield and heavy armor with shield are the main variants) 3. Good enough to work versus almost anything. Just a comment here in general. There's another important factor that wieghs in there and that's appearance of AC. Being able to convince the attacker on the first full attack to NOT power attack when you have an AC of 'yes' is a worthwhile cludge. Presumably then you either extracate yourself by evading them or by nuking them before they can correct their mistake. -James
trollbill 09-22-06, 01:11 PM	One reason my archer got quickdraw early was to make alchemical, blunt (club) and slashing (throwing axes) an option when piercing wasn't getting the job done. It also meant in any situation where an AOO would be nice he could fill his hand with a club and not have any table variation on whether a spiked gaunt would work. (in grapples...he just grapples. He's strong and fullBAB, or nearly so. If it is too big to grapple, he punches it. Spiked gauntlets are too silly for him to consider, mostly cause he's built to not need them) I am curious about this statement. I have never seen any table variation on spiked gauntlets. While they may be a 'conceptual' cheat for archers, by all accounts they seem to be a legal one. What rules justification do DMs give for disallowing them? Also, how does Quickdraw help you with AoOs since you cannot Quickdraw as part of an AoO?
solbergb 09-22-06, 02:00 PM	Trust me, some folks think if you fire a bow you can't use a spiked gauntlet that round. It is a religious dispute. You tend to cut through it by using a feat to fill the hand with a "Real" weapon. you quickdraw on your turn, after you've fired all your shots. Then you drop the club when you do your next volley, and quickdraw another one on the next round. You don't use quickdraw to pull a weapon during an AOO. You've got to remember to fill your hand with it first.
trollbill 09-22-06, 02:32 PM	Trust me, some folks think if you fire a bow you can't use a spiked gauntlet that round. It is a religious dispute. You tend to cut through it by using a feat to fill the hand with a "Real" weapon. you quickdraw on your turn, after you've fired all your shots. Then you drop the club when you do your next volley, and quickdraw another one on the next round. LOL! Seems like the fix is even sillier than the original dispute. I think, as a DM, I'd rather let the players use a spiked gauntlet in the same round they use a bow than watch clubs pile up at the feet of archers so that they fulfil their techinical requirements by breaking realism even more than the DM was originally complaining about.
solbergb 09-22-06, 03:26 PM	I work with what's real, not with what I'd like the world to be. I disagree about the whole spiked gauntlet "issue" but filling the hand with a real weapon highlights the absurdity of it, (since I AM allowed to attack with that weapon too, in addition to firing the bow, by the core rules...or throw it for that matter). I wouldn't take quickdraw just for that. The primary use is to get a bow in my hands to full attack if for any reason I start the round without one (social reasons bow isn't out, or I got disarmed or sundered or stunned and am pulling my other bow, say). The secondary use is to throw things with full "volley". Very handy. Tertiary is to bypass stupid rule arguments :)