Magic weapon on amunition?

[Oskar Maxon]

Are you suddenly just agreeing with everything I posted? >_>

Why yes, like thouse wild orc guerilla hunters hide behind the orc warriors and deal damage to frontliners/support alike, so i would like to see archers, crossbowmen and slingers taking down orc warriors from behind the frontliners.

This is the only part I take real note of otherwise, as I got the feeling (taking into account the testing you mentioned of other builds) you were complaining about how no one but a rogue could do good damage with a ranged weapon. I'd just make a note of the fact that Orc Guerillas have sneak attack.

[Drakill Tannan]

Wich is what disapoints me. You can do great damage with bows, not sure with slings, but with bows and crosbows you can kill most things before they come close... if three people are firing at once. One will do nothing, and then, you can stop 1, 2? but not three enemeis comming at you.

As an archer, Isendel is pretty good. The sneak attack damage is enought to justify his existance as he often does as much damage as a frontliner. But i would like to see a non-rogue archer/slinger/crossbowman.

You'll agree the ability to pierce DR when enchanted isn't as.. "ZOMG IMBALANCED!!!111" since most fighters witha  longsword can do so already. As it is now, only rogues can effectively pierce DR with a bow, but not when something is inmune to sneak attack.

1-4 fire damage isn't that much either, considering the frontliners get 1-4+caster level, usually +5 so they get like twice the enchantment. But the combined effect of +1 mighty bows, point blank shot, +1-4 fire damage and rapid shot can make a good archer even without sneak attack.

The thing is, why do you disagree with this? is it because you think bows are powerfull enough? i've never seen a non-rogue archer with the exeption of wizards trying to save spells, and they hit for 5 damage evey 5 rounds anyway. If they are so powerfull why aren't there more character speciallised in bows? Most use ranged weapons as a secondary alternative to melee fighting for when they are low on HP or being shoot from a cliff.

Is it because you think it's unrealistic? I don't see why, if globes can be enchanted, weapons can be enchanted, bows can't.

Come on, if this thread turns like the last one the first reply linked me to it will lead to nothing. If you have something wich you think makes this suggestion not viable, please say it.

[Oskar Maxon]

I neither agree nor disagree with this suggestion, I disagree with a couple of points brought up. As the first "Soldiers used bows, you know!" I think, however, that most of these problems lies with the hp system, which there won't be a change to.

[Letsplayforfun]

Who would've thunk that beating a dead horse long enough would mean something came out of it?

Lol.

[Luke Danger]

As my dad says, D&D really nerfed ranged weaponry, to the point where archers are more of a nuisance.

That's right, in D&D, Legolas would be worthless as a member of the fellowship, so no killing a Mumakil for him. Guess Gimli gets the bigger kills since Legolas is nerfed.

Having played a archer without pwr building, I did do decent damage, but that was only against orc warrior meatbags. I really only got kills when someone knocked 'em to Near Death and I got the lucky shot it. This is sort of why most archers have secondary abilities, IE, stealth, spells, etc., to make them valuble. A Ranger is useful for tracking, so it's worth having him along even if he isn't a damage-dealer with his bow. However, against Nightrisers, suckily enough, a FE: Undead ranger with a bow has to rely on spec ammo and aiming at weaker risers to get damage done. . . and that's assuming he can get past their DR, of which Arrows cannot break in EfU without being rare already (I'm talking about the magical ammo that drops in 3-12 sets!)

Just making a point about how archers have to be pwr built to do decent damage around here in EfU, discounting DM loot of course.

[The Crimson Magician]

As my dad says

That's pretty tight.

Also, this thread?

Here it Goes again!

[scribjellydonut]

As my dad says, D&D really nerfed ranged weaponry, to the point where archers are more of a nuisance.

Actually in D&D archers are a good asset when used correctly.  In D&D you can get +1 arrows so that when you hit a foe with a DR of 5/+1 you do 4-12 damage each shot instead of 0-6.  Plus you can get rapid shot which is nice especially at lower levels.
 
On EfU I think there are some who are afraid to add the +1 arrows because then maybe some builder will decide to give them to the enemies, and they don't want to have to rescript the quests where the warriors drink their far-to-widely-available blur potions and run through a hail of archers sacking each one in turn.  (oh by the way the damage ranges above were for longbows, a shortbow in the hands of a non-fighter will do 1-6 damage.  That's right, assuming you can bypass the AC of the guy with the blur potion, you have to then roll a 6 on your damage roll to even do anything, which is 1 damage.  The only hope you have is a rigged dice with a few extra 20s)
 
Really, throw in some +1 arrows into the module, and if they're already somewhere in the module make them SLIGHTLY more common.  I say slightly because I don't want them as ridiculously available as blur potions.

[Drakill Tannan]

Unfortunetly, +1 arrows won't solve the problem. That is because +1 arrows only add to the damage, they cannot add to the attack nor pierce damage reduction. The only solution is a +1 bow.

Now, if magic weapon was usable as i mentioned previously, in bows, this issue would be solved, if a spellcaster acompanies the archer or if the archer has items with magic weapon charges.

Flame weapon would also allow builds of specialised archers to be more viable, as i said before, with the tests i ran, a halfling slinger can be a very powerfull damage dealer. That way we don't need archers to have "other usefull" skills to be valuable, because the raw damage could make them valuable.

[ScottyB]

Having personally played a non-rogue archer (pure fighter) and having spent most of that character wielding a bow that can be acquired from a certain quest, if you want to go all-out archer, you can, and get some sick damage rolls; but you basically have to build your character around using the bow. And this success story is coming from one of the most mechanically inept members of the community, to boot.

But, even if buggy, i'd say the extra damage is the best alterative,

Have you ever thought that we might not want buggy arrows due to exploitation potential? Not all bugs cause problems for players - some bugs are very beneficial; for those exploiting them. "Slay Rakasha" isn't a property that has many applications, so if something unexpected happens to those arrows... who cares? On the other hand, freely converting normal arrows into +1 arrows would be an issue.

[Howlando]

I can't say I've read this thread, but I believe I've said everything I wanted on this subject about 2 years ago when the topic was first approached.

Enchanting bows/arrows isn't desirable at this time. Dedicated archers can prosper, excellent ammunition is available, but NWN just does not handle ranged weaponry very well.

[Random_White_Guy]

Archers are as strong as they need to be given their place on the battlefield.

You're plunking away arrows from afar. It shouldn't be as powerful as a frontliner, mostly because there's less risk involved.

Consider this dead horse beaten