Archers

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Okay, I don't know if this has already been discussed or not. Can "point blank" and "precise shot" be rolled into one feat? I get a little tired that a wizzy, sorcerer, warmage, etc has to take both those feats to be an effective spellcaster.
Okay, I don't know if this has already been discussed or not. Can "point blank" and "precise shot" be rolled into one feat? I get a little tired that a wizzy, sorcerer, warmage, etc has to take both those feats to be an effective spellcaster.

I have an issue with mundane archery/ranged combat being useless, but not with this being two feats. I they fix ranged combat so that warriors are just as good as wizards at it, then the need to make it so feat intensive might diminish.
Archery in D&D needs work in general, I hope they do something about it.
I have an issue with mundane archery/ranged combat being useless, but not with this being two feats. I they fix ranged combat so that warriors are just as good as wizards at it, then the need to make it so feat intensive might diminish.

IME ranged combat is far from useless, though situations and specifics can make it so. I also have no problem if wizards/spellcasters are the best at range, at it makes a lot of sense to me. I am also ok with the number of feats required (it is really only 3-4 in 3.X that are necessary, with others removing some of the situational penalties after that).

That said, 4e appears to combine archery and spellcasting into an "artillery" role (based on the monster encounter discussions); I would still guess that casting spells will trump to some degree a mundane archer, but that a high level warrior-archer will still have a strong place.
On further thought, I don't mind if they were two seperate feats (prefer one though) but reverse the prerequisites. Have precise shot be a prereq for point blank.
Yeah Archery really needs retooling in D&D. Unless you have some source of extra damage, those arrows are always going to be doing the same amount of damage no matter how high your level gets. And, I don't think that good archers should need to have d6s added to their damage just because of precision damage.
I hope they fix the "I take a 5ft step back to avoid AoOs and then..." tactic. It is more of an issue.

The two seperate feats doesn't really bother me. Ranged touch attacks are only a minor part of spell casting, though this may be changed in 4.0. Though I do agree that reversing the order of pre-reqs makes sense.

I still think that shileds should have more of an affect on AC vs ranged attacks/spells than they do now.
I hope they fix the "I take a 5ft step back to avoid AoOs and then..." tactic. It is more of an issue.

The part of me that like realism agrees, but I think that the part of me that puts "fun" over "realism" wins out here. Being good at archery is a lot of effort in 3e, and I perfectly understand why players who have invested the money and feats into a good archer build are reluctant to drop the bow when someone closes to melee.

Getting rid of the ability for that investment in archery to be useful as soon as an enemy closes on you (especially one that can hit you but you can't hit due to reach) would make archery even more the unloved stepchild of armament choices in D&D.

The two seperate feats doesn't really bother me. Ranged touch attacks are only a minor part of spell casting, though this may be changed in 4.0. Though I do agree that reversing the order of pre-reqs makes sense.

Since I'm weighing here, I'd mostly agree. Reversing the pre-reqs would make things suck less for ray-casters. I would not in any way be opposed to combining the feats, though.

I still think that shileds should have more of an affect on AC vs ranged attacks/spells than they do now.

I think so too. This is why I like the Shield Ward feat in PHB2. I'd honestly like to see its effect that the shield bonus applies to touch AC (or 4e's Reflex equivalent) be carried over into the default rules for shields. Yes, that would make nearly everyone want a shield, but is that really a bad thing when facing ranged attackers as a real threat?
The part of me that like realism agrees, but I think that the part of me that puts "fun" over "realism" wins out here. Being good at archery is a lot of effort in 3e, and I perfectly understand why players who have invested the money and feats into a good archer build are reluctant to drop the bow when someone closes to melee.

Getting rid of the ability for that investment in archery to be useful as soon as an enemy closes on you (especially one that can hit you but you can't hit due to reach) would make archery even more the unloved stepchild of armament choices in D&D.

Although I do agree that this would make archery even more unloved, they have the chance to fix it in 4.0. I don't so much have a problem with archers as I do with spell casters. Magic is not underpowered and even has a concentraction skill check to avoid the AoO, yet many players don't bother putting skill points into it, because of the 5ft step tactic.

I personally would like to see less of an emphasis on specializing in ONE type of weapon for fighters. Feats that worked for range and melee would also help broaden the fighters role in combat, and hence make it more fun to be a fighter.

I do think that in 4.0 the mechanics should support a fighter moving from ranged to melee once and enemy closes, as opposed to they 3.x system, that as you state penalizes the switch due to the heavy investment needed in one combat style to be effective.
Okay, I don't know if this has already been discussed or not. Can "point blank" and "precise shot" be rolled into one feat? I get a little tired that a wizzy, sorcerer, warmage, etc has to take both those feats to be an effective spellcaster.

Uhm, I've NEVER taken those feats for a spellcaster and mine have been very effective. Touch Attacks, which most spells are, are pathetically easy to hit with. That -4 for shooting into a melee is pretty meaningless, assuming you're even throwing spells that require to-hit rolls instead of just Slay Living, Sleep, Color Spray, or several dozen other save-or-lose spells.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I think so too. This is why I like the Shield Ward feat in PHB2. I'd honestly like to see its effect that the shield bonus applies to touch AC (or 4e's Reflex equivalent) be carried over into the default rules for shields. Yes, that would make nearly everyone want a shield, but is that really a bad thing when facing ranged attackers as a real threat?

I completely agree with this. This should be a standard benefit for shields. But to combine this thread with the armor and DEX thread I think shields should provide more of an AC advantage and add this to touch AC and REF saving throws. And it would help balance the two handed weapon abuse that is so common since you would have to choose between doing great damage or having great defense. Shields really should be that good in combat.
On further thought, I don't mind if they were two seperate feats (prefer one though) but reverse the prerequisites. Have precise shot be a prereq for point blank.

That's a good idea, and seems pretty logical. Would you not learn to shot "precisely" before being able to aim properly to do more damage on close range (aiming vital points, etc) ?

But then... since 4th is supposed to be simplified, I really do think this -4 for shooting into melee just goes "bye-bye". Ranged attacks do less damage (in overall) than melee attack, so the bonus for useing them is to be able to attack from distance, avoiding danger (less chances of being attacked in melee).
archery in close combat is easily discouraged if you give the player a quick look into sundering rules: a bow is a one hit kill, even if it is a magical one.

so the 5 foot step stopped to be an issue for my group.

Archery in 3.X was not that bad, our groups archer killed 1-2 trolls per round at level 6, so i rather thought archers were actually strong. What bothered me with archery was that in later levels you could fire 4-5 shots in 6 secs, which is more or less stupid. This issue, as well as arrows doing more damage is beeing adressed by giving damage boni instead of iterate attacks, so extra attacks from feats and abilities will actually have a great impact rather than beeing ust another d8 you roll...
Sundering is completely unrealistic, and is also unfun. It's almost impossible to do in the real world, so why not simply do away with it entirely? Nobody likes having their weapon sundered.
Archery in the game is balanced by being more shots for less damage than melee attacks. This is backwards to how it works really, where an arrow shot that hits is very nasty, but it's slow to fire compared to how many times you can swing a sword. Look up how fast a skilled bowman can shoot, and it doesn't come anywhere near the 5-6 times a round that a D&D bowman can pull off at high level.

I'd support archery being limited to once per round like melee, with similar stacking damage bonuses. The advantage is that you don't have to be in melee, and the disadvantage is that you are basically just shooting for damage, and worrying about cover, you have no cool maneuvers to go for like disarming and bullrushing.

--Penn