Are Archers really the best ranged-weapon-fighters? (comparison)

Remove all ads!

Intro:

Ok, as I promised, here is the comparisation of Archers and Kensais in ranged attacks, as a reply on the guy in the topic "Archers aren't the best in ranged weapons" where he sais a Kensai with a throwing Axe can be better.


I made a Kensai and an Archer. I have tried this at maximum level (Kensai level 19, Archer Level 17) (this is a benefit for the Kensai)
To check the damage I used another character of the party. I didn’t look at the armor class against sort of attacks for both Throwing Axe and Bows do piercing damage. The characters have only the equipment that is beneath:

Archer Stats:

Proficiency: Long Bow *****
Weapons: Normal Composite Long Bow (Regular), Heartseeker (Best Bow), arrow

Kensai stats:

Proficiency: Axe *****
Weapons: Throwing Axe (regular), Rifthome’s Axe (best Throwing Axe in the game)


The Comparisation:

Archer with Composite Long Bow:

Base Thaco: 4
Thaco: -2
Number of Attacks: 3
Damage: Between 5 and 9

Archer with Heartseeker:

Base Thaco: 4
Thaco: -4
Number of Attacks: 7/2
Damage: Between 6 and 9

 Note, this is still with Normal Arrows. Thaco would be higher with some magical arrows.

Kensai with Throwing Axe:

Base Thaco: 2
Thaco: -2
Number of Attacks: 5/2
Damage: Between 6 and 10

Kensai with Rifthome’s Axe:

Base Thaco: 2
Thaco: -5
Number of Attacks: 5/2
Damage: Between 8 and 12 (+3 damage)


The Duel:

Who is really better? What is a better way to find out then doing a duel? The Kensai had 3 hit points more, so he gained 3 damage. Now both characters have 120 hit points. First I let them fight against each other, both with their best weapon (and no other equipment). The Archer hit more then the Kensai, also for the higher attack per round, but the Kensai did more damage at a hit. The archer won, and had 11 hit points (1 good hit) left. My opinion is that this is because the Axe gives +3 to damage and a bow doesn’t. To prove who is really better is only possible when we play with normal weapons. So I did another duel: Normal Throwing Axes against a normal Long Bow. The Archer easily won this one, he had 36 hit points left when the Kensai fell. The last duel, to see who is really better in ranged attack in the game, a Axe-grandmaster Kensai or a Bow-grandmaster Archer. They both used the best weapon again, and of course the Archer also used good Arrows, however I gave him “only” arrows +2, where he would have been better with Biting or Fire Arrows. Again no chance for the Kensai. 18 hit points left for the Archer.


Conclusion:

I think I don’t have to say much. The Thaco of the Kensai with regular weapons is the same, the Thaco with the best ranged weapons is for the Kensai one lower. With arrows +2, the Thaco of the Archer is 1 lower. The Archer has with normal weapons more attacks per round. As you can see, the Kensai does more damage. The explanation is easy, he uses a axe that does +3 damage, the damage of bows are in the Arrows, so with special arrows, the archer would do as much damage as the Kensai. Another thing is Range, something that is very important for archers. I couldn’t find the range of the weapons but I suppose that the range of Bow’s is much higher then the range of a Throwing Axe. And as you can see in the last duel, arrows really make the archer better then the Kensai. With fire, cold or +2 arrows, there becomes really a difference between Archers and Kensai’s with Throwing Axes. Another thing is that the arrows don’t make an archer just more powerful, but the variety of attacks is much higher. A Kensai has only one attack. But an Archer can do so much more; Arrows of Piercing against mages, arrows of dispelling on mages, Arrow’s of Fire against trolls for example and go on. So when you really wanna have a strong fighter for range attacks, fo for the archer, without doubt.

 

Hi Headbanger,

Good analysis. You should have broken your post into two sections. Set the scene with the first, took some bets and ended with the duel .

As a minor point I am not sure about the damage ranges you quoted, lvl 17 archer +5 class bonus, 1D6 for arrow and whatever the bow gives, doesn't the heatseeker and composite give a little bit? +1 and +2, hence I get 7-13 and 8-14 for archer.

+6 class for kensai plus 1D6+1 for throwing axe and 1D6+3 for rifthomes axe gives 8-13 and 10-15 for kensai. Maybe I misunderstood your calculation basis? Anyway, not that different are they and archer won the duel.

Mirkwood will probably come back with the gridle strength bonus thing. However, the counter is the range, I really believe this is the key, and as you so rightly pointed the other thing is the versatility of the archers attacks.

I did a quick expt on range tonight with a kensai throwing a dagger and an archer using a longbow and I think that the archer will get between 1-5 more ranged attacks off before the monster is in his face compared to the kensai. This is subject to speed and number of attacks/lvl/hasted etc. I used a vampire and a goblin for my expt.

Of course, with a decent throwing wpn the kensai is no slouch, and makes a great damage dealer in close quarter action. I wouls personally arm my kensai with Azures Axe for the instant kill potential on undead. With the kensai's THACO you are almost guaranteed a hit, then you just have to win the saving throw, and you will get a couple of shots at it.

Cheers

WittyNewt.

[This message has been edited by wittynewt (edited November 15, 2001).]

 

Headbanger, nice analysis. My only criticism is for the normal weapon duel (which I think really decides which class is more effective), shouldn't the Archer have been using a short bow (damage 1-6) vs the Kensais throwing axes (damage 1-6)?

It seems unfair to have the Archer using a weapon that even in its normal form does more damage.

 

You forgot to mention that the Archer can wear armor while the kensai can't!

 

Thinking about the range of an archer, can that really be of much use, as the fog of war restricts your sighting of enemies to a fairly short distance? I'd like to be able to have enough range to get off at least 5 shots before an enemy closed to melee range, but you normally only manage 2 when the enemy has a clear run in.

 

Nice analysis dude, but seems some ppl are very umm somewhat "protective" of their classes, I tried both, Kenzai rules in close combat, while the Archer is awesome in ranged attacks, weakening the enemy before the Kenzai deals the final blow..Ans as for the range, yeah fog of war is a potential range killer, but what about using Wizards Eye or Farsight ???..should add some more attacks for the Archer, right

 

Maldir don't forget stealth, in that way you can line up just so you see monster, get one shot off before it even starts to go towards you, and than depending on bow you can shoot 3 (!) more times, where he falls dead n your feet.


I am playing archer now and it's really good, just can't decide which bow to use
Some arrows have wrong thac0, arrows of piercing have thac0 of +5 rather than +4 that it is written. And fire/ice arrows get you some +2-3 thac0 bonus...that is iirc

 

ArtEChoke, the damage of a normal Arrow is 1d6. The Long Bow gives Thaco +1 and a Throwing Axe is 1d6+1, iirc also +1 on damage, so that's even a small benefit for the Kensai. The Kensai had even more benefits. He cannot wear armor where the ranger can, he cannot use stealth where the archer can, and he cannot use special attacks, where the archer can use many different arrows (good for the Kensai that he didn't)

I didn't do a real duel but the Melee attack of an Archer isn't that bad. When they would meet and duel in a real attack, what would happen? The Kensai has to have the luck that the archer isn't hid in shadows, else the first attack is really painful. In a real duel, we've sene the Kensai looses in ranged attacks. When he decides to fight the Archer in melee, the archer can damage him a lot with fire, cold ot acid arrows, so the Kensai would be weakened and have lost a lot of hit points before he reaches the archer. Then the archer can switch to melee and as we could see in Ragusa's post in theother Topic, the ranged attack of an archer is a bit but not bad compared with a Kensai and I'm pretty sure the Archer would finish the Kensai in melee. I also began to like the Archer-class so I will solo with an archer soon, it will be great I suppose.

Maybe the Archer will be beaten in ranged attacks when a monk would have his hand cut off and he decides to throw with his fist at enemies

 

Hi,

Range is a big advantage. Longbow has enough range to target max visible (upto fog of war). A thrown weapon is about 1/2 to 2/3 of this. Just try it for yourself. Set up one of your characters on the edge of fog of war and see how close your throwing weapon chap has to get before he releases his weapon. I didn't use farsight or wizard eye, but potentially this might give even more.

In my expt, with no enhancements the archer got of 1 more attack than the kensai.
I then played around with combinations of haste firer, improved haste firer, and equip firer with tuigan bow (for archer only) and stealth firer (only archer again), slow target, and the result was maximum of five extra attacks for the archer, this was acheived with tuigan bow, starting stealthed, improved hasted and slowed target.

Cheers,

WittyNewt.

 

Indeed. I haven't looked at Range but for an Archer this is really important as I already said. The goal of an archer is to kill the enemy from distance, and the farrer, the better! It's a pity that with this, the rules of the game are totally different from the 3rd edition rules (dunno show that was in 2nd edition). There you can, when you see your enemy attack him from a very large distance, but the farrer you are away, the less chance to hit you got. That part of D&D rules should also be implemented in Never Winter Nights.