D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Archer changes

[LokiDR]

Yea, that combo can be pretty powerful (and we did change the rules so bow and ammo doesn't stack but the bow bestows it's power upon the ammo).

The character is pretty powerful, but he has to: I'm the only one that can really help the others with buffs (we have another cleric, but that one's multiclassed as paladin so she doesn't have that much cleric spells. And our wizard banned transmutation...), one of the two healers, one of the damage-dealers with weapons, the only one that can use transportation magic (again, the wizard and his banned transmutation: I'll be the only party member that can use teleport, with miracle) , one of two party healers (although the other cleric could manage that alone, I think), and now that the wizard will be able to attend to sessions only now and then, I'll have to use spells of mass destruction, too (the fact that we now enter the Abyss and most of the cleric's damage spells deal fire damage doesn't help with that...)

If you are taking so many rolls in the party, it is a wonder you don't believe archers (especially cleric archers) are overpowered. It sounds like the rest of your party is just foolish (ban transmutation!?!)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If you are taking so many rolls in the party, it is a wonder you don't believe archers (especially cleric archers) are overpowered.

I don't take so many roles in the party because archers are overpowered. I take'm cause I'm the only one that can take those roles. I don't say I'm really good at all that.

It sounds like the rest of your party is just foolish (ban transmutation!?!)

I wouldn't say that. Of course it was foolish to ban transmutation, but it was his first 3e (and maybe even D&D) character AFAIK, and he didn't know what he did there. Sadly, he's our only wizard (we had a Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, but that char was a very weak spellcaster, the player was an awful roleplayer and doesn't show up anymore, which is a blessing) and can't play as often as before cause he moved.

 

[Tidus4444]

I didn't realize a cleric/archer was that good. I might try it out sometime.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

I didn't realize a cleric/archer was that good. I might try it out sometime.

I wish I had my last one (Ruben Starsmore, CG cleric of Sheverash) in a text format so I could post him.

Needless to say, a Cleric only loses two things to a fighter, BAB and feats. Sadly, the feats don't make that much of a difference (IMHO), and the spells make up for the bab. Especially if you can get eighth level spells and persistant Divine Power... *drool*

I don't mean to turn this into an argument on clerics, but as a note that this is one good reason why some believe that clerics and cleric archers need to be changed.

I personally think that melee has the inherant weakness of subjecting you to direct damage from a source. I think archery has the inherant weakness that it can be stopped by putting something in the way or moving out of line of sight. I feel that most of the time this is balancing, when the opposing forces play right.

Beyond that, I feel that archers are more useful in a lot of combats than melee fighters... just like wizards are often more useful than them. But again, there are drawbacks that (if properly exploited) turn the tables. And that's just what the drawbacks are there for.