Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[DnD 5E] D&D doesn't care about bow people.

16465666870

Posts

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    That being said, it is fun to wonder what humanity would look like if there was reliable, regular access to actual magic. What would medicine look like if every clinic had a staff of clerics? What would agriculture look like if the National Association of Druids could make any piece of land supernaturally bountiful? How much of the labor force could be replaced by Unseen Servants? What would the cosmetic or fashion industries be like if anyone could buy a scroll and just make themselves look exactly how they want? How would.governments function if spies could literally read your mind?

    It is a struggle in my world building to find a sweet spot where magic is rare enough that it doesn't upend a medieval society but common enough people don't freak out when they see it.

    I mean both of those sound cool but one seems like a pain to craft and the other a pain for magic users to play.

    This is me and my infinite struggle with world building in DnD. I have this pie in the sky idea, but it kinda falls apart once I consider the existence of Goodberries. I need to really sit down and hammer out some details, but most of it relies on finding common ground with whoever wants to play in my campaign setting. You're not writing a book for DnD-nerds to appreciate. You're making a setting for your players to enjoy.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Can you, like, pickle Goodberries? I know the spells says 24hrs, but what if they could be made to last longer?

    I have this sky islands idea and I'm suddenly intrigued by the idea of airships carrying barrel of goodberries swimming in brine to use as emergency rations or something.

    And I don't think goodberries would push things like farming and raising cattle out of the world. In my head canon, Goodberries are nourishing and sustaining, OK. But they are not satisfying. Yeah, popping a berry will keep you going. But it will never make you happy like a rare steak and fresh baked bread with butter and maybe some grilled asparagus on the side would.

    Aldo
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Can you, like, pickle Goodberries? I know the spells says 24hrs, but what if they could be made to last longer?

    I have this sky islands idea and I'm suddenly intrigued by the idea of airships carrying barrel of goodberries swimming in brine to use as emergency rations or something.

    And I don't think goodberries would push things like farming and raising cattle out of the world. In my head canon, Goodberries are nourishing and sustaining, OK. But they are not satisfying. Yeah, popping a berry will keep you going. But it will never make you happy like a rare steak and fresh baked bread with butter and maybe some grilled asparagus on the side would.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVH9bEUWsAEf8he?format=jpg&name=medium

    steam_sig.png
    SteelhawkGlalElvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    That being said, it is fun to wonder what humanity would look like if there was reliable, regular access to actual magic. What would medicine look like if every clinic had a staff of clerics? What would agriculture look like if the National Association of Druids could make any piece of land supernaturally bountiful? How much of the labor force could be replaced by Unseen Servants? What would the cosmetic or fashion industries be like if anyone could buy a scroll and just make themselves look exactly how they want? How would.governments function if spies could literally read your mind?

    It is a struggle in my world building to find a sweet spot where magic is rare enough that it doesn't upend a medieval society but common enough people don't freak out when they see it.

    I mean both of those sound cool but one seems like a pain to craft and the other a pain for magic users to play.

    I opt for, the folks the party deals with regularly are used to magic, The central city they are spreading magic throughout is becoming used to seeing magical things. Folks in small villages? Totally fuckin astounded by magic.

    A game or two ago the party walked into a town and the druid started miraculously healing folks around town. Made a bit of a commotion at the surgeon's.

    The party, and player characters in general, are the folks on the forefront of such research and discovery. If anyone's changing society with magic its the player characters doing it.

    Elvenshae
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Im working on some homebrew rules for magic that the more permanent effects burn hit dice, forever. Want a +1 sword? For a permanent enchantment that costs the wizard making it one hit die.

    It makes permanent magic items rare and valuable. For example a wizard's legacy might be the Flaming +3 sword of power, and it costs him 3 hit dice, which might be a majority of his life force.

    A cleric wants to true resurrect someone? That's a hit die from both of them, and for the person being resurrected it's a cumulative strain on their life force. If they need resurrected again it'll be 2 hit dice, etc...

    Same with death magic. Successfully using power word kill will cost a mage a hit die. You have to expend a bit of your life force to immediately extinguish theirs.

    Still playing with it but I think there is something there.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    webguy20 wrote: »
    Im working on some homebrew rules for magic that the more permanent effects burn hit dice, forever. Want a +1 sword? For a permanent enchantment that costs the wizard making it one hit die.

    It makes permanent magic items rare and valuable. For example a wizard's legacy might be the Flaming +3 sword of power, and it costs him 3 hit dice, which might be a majority of his life force.

    A cleric wants to true resurrect someone? That's a hit die from both of them, and for the person being resurrected it's a cumulative strain on their life force. If they need resurrected again it'll be 2 hit dice, etc...

    Same with death magic. Successfully using power word kill will cost a mage a hit die. You have to expend a bit of your life force to immediately extinguish theirs.

    Still playing with it but I think there is something there.

    What's the cost for turning yourself into a lich?

    Moridin889
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    So arcane archers, yay or nay?

    I like the idea, but feel the lack of spell casting is weird from a lore perspective.

    I revised them for my own games so that their arcane shots are keyed off of Int modifier (as to give them a stronger focus on Intelligence).

    I also changed all the wording so that all of their abilities work with any missiles (so you can have folks with slings & crossbows using the subclass).

    2mw6ukw.jpg
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    You've reminded me of this article from a while back, How the Identify Spell Destroys the World.

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
    ElvenshaeNipsBursar
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Rius wrote: »
    webguy20 wrote: »
    Im working on some homebrew rules for magic that the more permanent effects burn hit dice, forever. Want a +1 sword? For a permanent enchantment that costs the wizard making it one hit die.

    It makes permanent magic items rare and valuable. For example a wizard's legacy might be the Flaming +3 sword of power, and it costs him 3 hit dice, which might be a majority of his life force.

    A cleric wants to true resurrect someone? That's a hit die from both of them, and for the person being resurrected it's a cumulative strain on their life force. If they need resurrected again it'll be 2 hit dice, etc...

    Same with death magic. Successfully using power word kill will cost a mage a hit die. You have to expend a bit of your life force to immediately extinguish theirs.

    Still playing with it but I think there is something there.

    What's the cost for turning yourself into a lich?

    I think it would stay the same, as being a lich has some downsides, and you'd still burn hit dice to do powerful magic.

    I was also thinking that you could use sacrifices to power big magic, but the sacrifices had to be true believers for them to actually be able to use their life force for someone else's msgic.

    It could lead to heroic sacrifice to bring someone back from the dead, or force evil beings to raise cults to get their power. Also could be some interesting plot hooks by having antagonists working to circumvent those limitations.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    The whole point of a lich is typically that you're using other people's life force, against their will, to extend your life and power - so it would be a pretty big change to the creature if they had to do that

    Which isn't necessarily bad, it would force them to be a much less chaotic entity, as they would have to cultivate followers

    however keep in mind that necromancy isn't even that powerful, many 9th level spells are much more powerful than Power Word Kill and if you're attaching permanent costs to expected functions, players will probably never use any of those spells or abilities - making it functionally the same as just removing them from the player's spell lists (with the exception of Resurrection spells, I like the losing a HD permanently so much I'm stealing it - for the resurrect-ee not the resser, otherwise my players will end up just kidnapping clerics and forcing them to do it and not pick that spell themselves)

    override367 on
    Aldodestroyah87Moridin889
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    So arcane archers, yay or nay?

    I like the idea, but feel the lack of spell casting is weird from a lore perspective.


    In our curse of strahd game we had a Hexblade "Arcane archer"

    it's everything everyone wanted out of arcane archer, all warlock spells are flavored as being bow delivered, and good god a sharpshooter crit with eldritch smite is actually overpowered

    override367 on
    ElvenshaeIvellius
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    The whole point of a lich is typically that you're using other people's life force, against their will, to extend your life and power - so it would be a pretty big change to the creature if they had to do that

    Which isn't necessarily bad, it would force them to be a much less chaotic entity, as they would have to cultivate followers

    however keep in mind that necromancy isn't even that powerful, many 9th level spells are much more powerful than Power Word Kill and if you're attaching permanent costs to expected functions, players will probably never use any of those spells or abilities - making it functionally the same as just removing them from the player's spell lists (with the exception of Resurrection spells, I like the losing a HD permanently so much I'm stealing it)

    Yea im fine with the resurrection and insta death spells being functionality removed, or at least at a much higher cost.

    I like the idea of a powerful enemy mage cackling at the party while slitting a willing cultists throat and casting power word kill at the party.

    Same with permanent enchantments. Makes questing for or creating magical artifacts more interesting in my opinion. Maybe a powerful fighter is willing to sacrifice a bit of themselves to create an artifact that will allow them to overcome their goals.

    Also all this hinges on the type of game a person wants to run. It's certainly not for everyone. Also I still need to dig through all the spells to see what's what. I've just scratched the surface.

    webguy20 on
    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »

    Magic missile is neither a cantrip nor a ritual.

    I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Since "Magic Missile" is neither "what takes up a spell slot" nor what is necessary in order to be better than archery.
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Legolas seemed to do quite alright as the sole archer in his high level adventuring party.

    Sure... But they didn't have a "wizard". Gandalf is not a wizard in the DnD sense. He is an NPC. The most powerful spell gandalf casts before dinking off into the abyss is light.
    Glal wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    But then you say how many arrows can you carry and again some pretty hard limits. Quivers hold 20 unless you are lucky enough to get a magical one (that requires attunement!) and then there is carry weight...
    You can always carry more ammo with you, you don't need to carry it on your person at all times. And most spellcasters cannot simply get all of their slots back at the end of a combat encounter, unlike archers.

    I don't personally care that much for archery characters (the part that appeals to me about Rangers is the pet portion, the archery portion is just boring point&click), but purely mechanically if an archer can pull off the same effectiveness in combat as a caster then being able to do so every combat encounter might very well be a good reason to skip out on the utility of magic outside of combat.

    If you're legitimately tracking then it becomes a lot harder to just carry a bunch of arrows around and its very easy to run out. But no one does that because that type of record keeping is bogus. Just like no one keeps track of spell components so hard that spell components necessity* were written out of game.

    Mechanically an archer can only come close to pulling off the same effectiveness in combat as a caster unless combat encounters go way way above the recommended amount (and typically combat encounters are way way below the recommended amount). A single slot'd spell plus cantrips per encounter will out-strip archers the majority of the time** and you've got 9 spell slots by 5th level(10 by 6th when archers get their second attack) which makes for roughly 5 proper encounters of dominance. Very very early the higher damages of the attacks (1d8+3 vs 1d10) can sometimes make the archer slightly better before spells scale up to the real hurt.

    I understand why archers are in the game, its a long standing fantasy trope that goes back to the earliest history. But that doesn't mean its consistent with all the other fantasy tropes(or mechanics) that are shoved into DnD.

    *those that do not have significant monetary cost that is.

    **Not only is total damage likely to be higher but fight impact is also skewed towards earlier damage/control which the burst nature of slots allows better than the consistent nature of arrows.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    With artificers in the mix it becomes even more ridiculous to make your ranger keep track of arrows

    "Okay you fired 13 arrows, you had 15 left so now you have two"
    "I made more"
    "Okay, how did you do that?"
    "The artificer just shot a fireball out of enchanted shoes and then crafted a 600 pound steel beast with a blacksmith's hammer in 6 seconds"

    Elvenshae
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Is it that time of the month where we go around about martial characters being underpowered and having to adhere to the real world and mages are over powered and get a pass on realism?

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    AldoSmrtnikElvenshaeDizzy DGlalSCREECH OF THE FARGFryZonugal
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I recently had a game where tracking arrows was gonna be a bit important headed into a desert, then we had a combat that included 10 archers with full quivers... if my party manages to fire off 200 arrows before they get a chance to restock I'll be impressed.

  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    It isn't actually hard to keep track of your arrows though. We stopped when I got a bag of holding, but it was never a burden before that. How different is it from keeping track of hit points? Spell components are way harder since they are so varied and rare. "How much guano got used on that spell?" vs you bought 60 arrows, you used 10, and recovered 5.

    I worry about the argument of don't be an archer, mages are better. If you follow that, you end up just picking the most optimized class and ignore everything else.
    I've been playing a Rouge Scout 9/Ranger Hunter 3 with Sharpshooter. Why pick a bow?

    With sneak attack I can do 1D8 +5D6 +10 a round not counting all my other bonuses from attributes, equipment, or other factors. And sneak attack is ridiculously easy to get in this edition. Then add another D8 if they are already hurt for colossus slayer and another D6 for hunters mark.

    Play what excites you. Every class has a role somewhere.

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    Green
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    webguy20 wrote: »
    Is it that time of the month where we go around about martial characters being underpowered and having to adhere to the real world and mages are over powered and get a pass on realism?

    Yeah we're about due for another one of those. I could say something like "5E isn't good enough for anything to actually be over- or underpowered in real play" if that would help kick things off. I'm being snarky, but it is true.

    ArcanisTheImpotentElvenshaeSCREECH OF THE FARG
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    Ken O wrote: »
    It isn't actually hard to keep track of your arrows though. We stopped when I got a bag of holding, but it was never a burden before that. How different is it from keeping track of hit points? Spell components are way harder since they are so varied and rare. "How much guano got used on that spell?" vs you bought 60 arrows, you used 10, and recovered 5.

    I worry about the argument of don't be an archer, mages are better. If you follow that, you end up just picking the most optimized class and ignore everything else.
    I've been playing a Rouge Scout 9/Ranger Hunter 3 with Sharpshooter. Why pick a bow?

    With sneak attack I can do 1D8 +5D6 +10 a round not counting all my other bonuses from attributes, equipment, or other factors. And sneak attack is ridiculously easy to get in this edition. Then add another D8 if they are already hurt for colossus slayer and another D6 for hunters mark.

    Play what excites you. Every class has a role somewhere.

    You don't measure spell components except the consumable ones, a spell component pouch just lasts forever and provides all components that don't have an explicit gold cost

    Look if you like keeping track of all your players' arrows, be my guest, I wasn't trying to start an argument about balance, I was saying that since we hand wave away caster resources in a lot of cases (by RAW!), I don't have a problem waving away simple martial resources. At my own table, in general regular play where shops are available and wood is plenty, we haven't found any kind of fulfillment keeping track of ammunition - but that is not every table and I am not implying it is.

    We still obviously track that shit hard in things like, escaping in Out of the Abyss where you have ten arrows and a broken short sword obviously keeping track is part of the module's whole deal

    override367 on
  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    Please don’t think my comments were meant to be confrontational. By the time I got my reply typed out there were already a few responses to the original comment that I didn’t see until I posted. If anything I said was taken that way it wasn’t intentional.

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    override367Bullhead
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    webguy20 wrote: »
    Is it that time of the month where we go around about martial characters being underpowered and having to adhere to the real world and mages are over powered and get a pass on realism?

    No because archers are weak compared to mages when they do not have to adhere to the real world. Like. Its fine, play what you want. But that doens't make it consistent within the world.
    It isn't actually hard to keep track of your arrows though. We stopped when I got a bag of holding, but it was never a burden before that. How different is it from keeping track of hit points? Spell components are way harder since they are so varied and rare. "How much guano got used on that spell?" vs you bought 60 arrows, you used 10, and recovered 5.

    It hella is. The first is that its an additional keep and every additional bit of record keeping is an increasing rather than diminishing marginal load. The second is that you have have to record almost every round on basic things. AND it effects things like encumbrance. You have to keep that accounting and don't start over at any point. Every "day" roughly a mage just resets their slots.

    Imagine accounting for durability on weapons. Every time you attack durability goes down by one. You can repair durability at some rate during a long rest but you have to spend metal to do so and you have to record the weight of the metal...If that sounds horrible to you well... that is archery record keeping.
    Ken O wrote: »

    With sneak attack I can do 1D8 +5D6 +10 a round not counting all my other bonuses from attributes, equipment, or other factors. And sneak attack is ridiculously easy to get in this edition. Then add another D8 if they are already hurt for colossus slayer and another D6 for hunters mark.

    OK so you're doing 45 damage single target/round. Assuming you hit at -5, have +5 dex(which is reasonable), keep concentration on your spell, get sneak attack every round, and hit enemies that are already damaged*.

    And a 12th level wizard gets 3 fireballs for 8d6 damage AoE(28 average)... 3 fireballs for 9d6(31.5) AoE.. 2 cone of colds for 36 damage and 1 chain lightning for 45. All AoE. If they can hit 2-3 targets with one of those attacks/round you don't catch up before the combat is over. So you're behind for about 9 combats not counting if they're able to maintain concentration on spells like sunbeam. They still have 7 slots of utility/defensive spells.

    *Sharpshooter is still a good feat but if you're primarily sneak damage focused its probably a loss of overall damage unless you have advantage. Running the math; so long as your attack bonus is more than 1 lower than their AC you will do more DPR when NOT taking the -5 penalty to attack for +10 damage.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Legolas seemed to do quite alright as the sole archer in his high level adventuring party.

    Sure... But they didn't have a "wizard". Gandalf is not a wizard in the DnD sense. He is an NPC. The most powerful spell gandalf casts before dinking off into the abyss is light.

    That's unnecessarily reductive against Legolas, though. Regardless of whether or not the party wizard was flinging fireballs and other wizard type bullshit, Legolas was still killing orcs left right and centre. He was a badass orc-slaying archer before he hooked up with a wizard and continued to be one after the wizard left the party. His contributions to the adventuring party are plain to see.

    SmrtnikArcanisTheImpotentElvenshaeZonugal
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    ..
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Legolas seemed to do quite alright as the sole archer in his high level adventuring party.

    Sure... But they didn't have a "wizard". Gandalf is not a wizard in the DnD sense. He is an NPC. The most powerful spell gandalf casts before dinking off into the abyss is light.

    That's unnecessarily reductive against Legolas, though. Regardless of whether or not the party wizard was flinging fireballs and other wizard type bullshit, Legolas was still killing orcs left right and centre. He was a badass orc-slaying archer before he hooked up with a wizard and continued to be one after the wizard left the party. His contributions to the adventuring party are plain to see.

    No. Its not reductive. Because legolas with DnD magic would have been even more badass. So when he is a young legolad he has the choice of picking up archery or magic and chooses? Archery?

    Answer: wizards dont actually exist in that setting. He picked up archery because he could not become a wizard.

    The problem is not “archers suck” its “the things thay archers do good they would do better with dnd magic” so the exceptional people you see taking the ranged damage role in a small group of adventurers would be mages.

    Edit; maybe this would make sense. The problem with hawkeye is not that he is not awesome. The problem is that tony stark doesnt build him a suit. Spiderman gets a suit! War machine gets a suit! Tony gets fucking 30 suits! Black Widow and Hawkeye dont get suits. He could still have a bow because his power requires precise trajectory control but he could also fly and blast fools when he didnt need precise trajectory control

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    Brainleech wrote: »
    Cause not everyone can use magic?

    I know but if during the time of discovery {ie caveman} if one figured out magic missile and the bow can take down the same creature after 5 hits what would be the point of continuing the bow?
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    Shooting an arrow doesn't eat a spell slot.

    Nor do cantrips or rituals.


    Goumindong wrote: »
    Smrtnik wrote: »

    Magic missile is neither a cantrip nor a ritual.

    I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Since "Magic Missile" is neither "what takes up a spell slot" nor what is necessary in order to be better than archery.

    Hmmm

    :tell_me_more:

    Smrtnik on
    steam_sig.png
    IvelliusTerrendos
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    It's the problem that 4e tried to fix. Wizards are weak early on when they have low powered spells and a few slots. Once they get up past 10 or so they are bending reality to their will.

    5e isn't as bad about it but it's still there. It also plagues a lot of systems that mix martials and mages.

    There has to be a conceit somewhere that says that the dude firing the bow or swinging the sword is fantastically, unrealistically good at it at higher levels, and also give them the tools to be so. Otherwise it breaks unless your setting is specifically low magic.

    webguy20 on
    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    Smrtnik
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    Yea still dont get it. The poster was not making a reference to a specific spell but “arcane missiles” in general. And even when it got to that point you were still ignoring the argument being made. And even then i was quoting you before the discussion got to the point where you had harangued it to be about one specific spell.

    Right? Cantrips dont take spell slots. So “magic ammo is limited but archery ammo is not” is not a valid argument in world context. Magic is less limited than archery in ammo.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 12
    I disagree about using the average damage of fireball to imply anything, many many enemies have very high dexterity saving throws and a not insignificant percentage of the monster manual is resistant to fire, not to mention fireballs are unusable in any situation where you have to do single target damage, and spellcasters will use a not-insignificant percentage of their spell slots on things that aren't fireball in order to bypass danger and not get crushed like a bug

    Regardless I don't really want to start theorycrafting about damage up ins, I dont think its controversial to say spellcasters are more versatile and do a shit ton of area damage. I think martials, when supported by spellcasters, can neatly disassemble enemy spellcasters rulll good in situations where a spellcaster has trouble (obscured vision, line of sight, counterspells) and the game is a team game

    the most important thing is having fun though and most people seem to enjoy fighters and rogues just fine

    override367 on
    Ken OIvelliusJPants
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Yea still dont get it. The poster was not making a reference to a specific spell but “arcane missiles” in general. And even when it got to that point you were still ignoring the argument being made. And even then i was quoting you before the discussion got to the point where you had harangued it to be about one specific spell.

    Right? Cantrips dont take spell slots. So “magic ammo is limited but archery ammo is not” is not a valid argument in world context. Magic is less limited than archery in ammo.

    You can buy arrows and bolts just about anywhere civilized and many places not civilized, or craft your own from materials plentiful in the wilds. They are cheap to buy. You can use as many as you have on you, and they are so light, even low strength users can carry hundreds. If you have special items (magic quivers or a bag of holding) that hundreds turns into infinity.

    Cantrips and rituals are infinite. Everything else has a set amount of spell slots, and when those are up, that's it, until you take a nap. And spell slots are in the "couple dozen" not "hundreds" range, even ignoring that spells of high levels can't be used with low slots.


    This ends up not mastering much for an adventurer who had 5 encountes per "day". But the question was not about adventures but cavemen, i.e. primitive society in general. The caveman wizard is "spent" after a minute of combat or less. The caveman archer knows the war with the tribe on the other side of the hill will go on a lot longer than that.

    steam_sig.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    But the caveman wizard could not be spent after a cantrip and the caven archer cannot buy arrows all over the place; making her own is difficult and time consuming.
    I disagree about using the average damage of fireball to imply anything, many many enemies have very high dexterity saving throws and a not insignificant percentage of the monster manual is resistant to fire, not to mention fireballs are unusable in any situation where you have to do single target damage, and spellcasters will use a not-insignificant percentage of their spell slots on things that aren't fireball in order to bypass danger and not get crushed like a bug

    Regardless I don't really want to start theorycrafting about damage up ins, I dont think its controversial to say spellcasters are more versatile and do a shit ton of area damage. I think martials, when supported by spellcasters, can neatly disassemble enemy spellcasters rulll good in situations where a spellcaster has trouble (obscured vision, line of sight, counterspells) and the game is a team game

    the most important thing is having fun though and most people seem to enjoy fighters and rogues just fine

    If using the slot on a different spell is better than fireball then this expands the value for the slot, not contracts it.

    And non-wizards have to deal with all of those(well ok minus silence and counterspell) plus more. While fire isnt an uncommon resistance feats can negate that and so do other spells. The archer has one damage type the wizard has multiple, exploiting weaknesses is easier for it than a ranger, not harder.

    Archer fighters perform fine to OK. Its the thematics that are the issue.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • RiusRius Registered User regular
    Denada slaying the thread title once again

    DenadaSmrtnikwebguy20ArcanisTheImpotentElvenshaeJustTeeSCREECH OF THE FARG
  • ArcanisTheImpotentArcanisTheImpotent Registered User regular
    what i don't get is why we're trying to force strict logical coherence to works of fiction and wish fulfillment fantasy

    like, why have bows? because Bow Elf is an archetype people find cool and stylish and enjoy very much

    i'm sorry @Goumindong you have a burning hate boner against the idea of the game supporting things you don't personally enjoy, but that's like

    life

    sorry bud

    SmrtnikSteelhawkTynnanRhesus PositiveDizzy DDaenrisZonugal
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I don't have a hate boner about the game supporting things i don't personally enjoy. I just said i personally have problems with the concept because i don't like it; so that might taint my evaluation of a the material. Me acknowledging and stating my biases is not having a hate boner its giving you context for what comes next.

    Then i gave an other option for the archetype that i thought worked better while explaining what reasoning i had for the class being bad. Eldrich Knight is a better arcane archer than the Arcane Archer is. That was my argument. You get to cast cantrips and shoot bows. When you hit things with bows they have disadvantage against your spell saves! Its awesome and arcane and archery.

    Everything else is just people asking "why do you have this bias?". So they got an answer.

    If anything the problem isn't that the "game supports it" its that the game doesn't support it. Archery is ranged DPS with little variation in construction. So wizards, who are also ranged DPS but also utility have a pretty strict advantage over archers. Its legitimately hard to separate tactical archetypes in significant ways without pretty clear delineations regarding how the tactical game works. Which classes get which CC's and buffs and how they work. And damage doesn't have nearly as many ways in which it can be separated out. Mechanically a few of the melee classes have this problem as well. Barbarians and Fighters don't have a lot of differentiation between how they deal damage or deal with incoming damage. But (non champion) fighters have far more varied and interesting options available to them. You can be the melee guy who does damage or the melee guy who does damage and also does controllery stuff or the melee guy who does damage and also casts a decent variety of spells.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ArcanisTheImpotentArcanisTheImpotent Registered User regular
    edited June 13
    except

    and here's the the thing that i know is gonna blow your mind

    some people value the experience of carrying the membership card over anything else

    for some, their unique thing doesn't have to be good or effective; the fact that they're unique is enough for them

    it's like people who crow and holler about how bad the pet ranger is; some people just want to have their battle cat/bear/dog/ferret/whatever the fuck, just like some people want to be called an Arcane Archer or Bow Elf

    it smacks of "i hate this, i don't understand why this is an option, why did they make this, it's dumb" badwrongfun

    ArcanisTheImpotent on
    SmrtnikTynnanKadokenDizzy D
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 13
    Someone asked about how the Arcane Archer class worked. If they want to choose it despite it not working well then that is fine on them. If they want to choose it despite Eldrich Knight potentially being a better fit for the archetype? And working better mechanically? And also casting spells and so fitting into their conception of what an Arcane Archer looks like? That is fine on them too. They asked; so i gave as an objective assessment of i could and explained my non-objectivity.

    some people value the experience of carrying the membership card over anything else

    No. Its not going to blow my mind... because i've said as much already. I get that and why archers as tropes. I get why people like archery. That doesn't mean i have to like archery in dnd. If you want to change my mind about it, if you think that archery for adventurers does indeed make a lot of sense, then i will be happy to continue the argument. I also enjoy having those types of conversations. But otherwise don't tell me that my preferences are badwrong just because other people like that thing that i don't.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Nerdsamwich Nerdsamwich Registered User regular
    If you want get technical, and you likely do because we're a bunch of nerds, archers have free access to three damage types that wizards usually don't: piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning. Just because the standard arrow is a piercing implement doesn't mean you can only shoot bodkin points. Fowling blunts and broadheads are both real things.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Broadhead would be pirecing. (And is probably the “assumed” arrowhead) Like a shortsword is. Blunts would be... non-lethal?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Broadhead would be pirecing. (And is probably the “assumed” arrowhead) Like a shortsword is. Blunts would be... non-lethal?

    Blunts can easily be lethal from a hunting bow if we're talking real life.

    I imagine a broad head is better at rending flesh and a blunt tip would Pierce armor better.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    webguy20 wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Broadhead would be pirecing. (And is probably the “assumed” arrowhead) Like a shortsword is. Blunts would be... non-lethal?

    Blunts can easily be lethal from a hunting bow if we're talking real life.

    I imagine a broad head is better at rending flesh and a blunt tip would Pierce armor better.

    Since we're nerding out... Maybe but unlikely. Even at point blank ranges(unless like.. you stick a vital organ or your head right at the impact site). So looking around for various estimations of kinetic energy produced by bows even very high draw bows will produce significantly less kinetic energy than a mace. At point blank range you can get maybe 80 to 100 joules from an English longbow (well... more if the bow is hilariously strong... A 160 lbs draw bow with a long draw can get up to 160 ) which is about what you get from modern crossbows so this seems pretty reasonable. You're looking mainly at the material limits and human mechanical draw limits.

    Its significantly harder to get velocity/energy values for weapons but we can analog with "just humans throwing and hitting other things which we can measure". Because we're talking about the mechanical limits of human motion hitting something and then measuring its energy is a pretty decent analog for just hitting something. In the MLB fastballs hit an average of ~130 joules. (actually a little more now that we're fully into the max effort days) which is also about the same as hockey pucks(160) and golf balls(150) and tennis balls (140)*. Going back and looking for tee exit velocities ranges from 90 to 100 MPH are quite good for good but not spectacular athletes and is almost directly analagous to a club. Energy values are around 140 joules into the baseball.

    So if i am hitting with a club then about 140 to 160 joules seems reasonable. And shooting with a bow 80 to 100 joules seems reasonable. Shorter, faster bows, might be as low as 40 joules. After that we're talking mainly about efficacy of transfer to the target. Blunt arrows may be good at that but probably not compared to a hammer.

    For reference, a bean bag round out of a shotgun is running about 100 to 170 joules. (40 grams, 230 to 300 fps). Not something that you want to be shot with. But, at the low end, unlikely to be considered on the scale as getting hit with a baseball bat.

    You would have to drop the damage down a level at least if you were trying to "be realistic" (from d8 to at least a d6). Though if we were being "realistic" we would have to go back to the old 3e strength rating for bows too and no one wants to do that because archers don't need to be MAD.

    *Granted by elite athletes.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Nerdsamwich Nerdsamwich Registered User regular
    Bodkin points are piercing, being long and narrow for, well, piercing armor. Something they're quite good at, btw. Anything short of plate is as good as nonexistent to a longbowman with bodkin arrows. That's why they're assumed as the "standard" combat arrow for the bow's damage. Broadheads cause a much larger wound channel with lots of tissue damage so the animal you're hunting will bleed out quickly, as from a cut. Fowling blunts are usually nonlethal to a human the first time, but can easily break a rib, especially when loosed from a heavy warbow. A second hit could well puncture a lung. Since most targets in-game take more than one hit to kill, it sounds reasonable that my fantasy archer would carry all three types.

  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    You can buy arrows and bolts just about anywhere civilized and many places not civilized, or craft your own from materials plentiful in the wilds. They are cheap to buy. You can use as many as you have on you, and they are so light, even low strength users can carry hundreds. If you have special items (magic quivers or a bag of holding) that hundreds turns into infinity.
    This was my point, you're not limited to carrying a quiver's worth, they're dirt cheap and very light, even if you WERE to just carry them on your person at all times (which, why would you? Do your adventurers walk everywhere?).

    And using Fireball as a damage metric for magic damage in general is broken, because 5E designers have gone on record saying that Fireball does too much damage for its level, on purpose, because it's an iconic D&D spell and they wanted it to feel special. Unless you're literally just throwing fireballs all day, in which case I guess we're also assuming spellcasters are worthless in team fights or indoor fights.

    SmrtnikTynnan
Sign In or Register to comment.