Talk:Archer, Adventuring (3.5e Class)

Duplication

Should this maybe be combined with Archer (3.5e Class), since we really don't need two archer base classes?

no, its not like Highlander, there can be more than 1 --Name Violation 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Highlander franchise is better used as a reference to show that it's often better for there to just be one. --- 149.160.81.173 18:35, 8 February 2011 (MST)

Balance

This class is severely front loaded. spread out the abilities, no need for 2 at almost every level before 10. let people take weapon finesse on their own, maybe even ditch endurance and diehard and let them use their bonus feats for those kind of abilities. maybe bump back shot on the run a few levels. --Name Violation 23:14, 24 September 2009 (MDT)

I agree. Front loaded to heck. Feedback: --Jay Freedman 12:27, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

• Don't compare the number of class features to that of a fighters. Compare to the rangers. This archer has way too many.
• A wizard is the best glass cannon available. He can do many, many diverse tricks as well as being ranged nukers. And most wizard spells don't target AC! This archer just roles to hit. That's it?
• Front loading is bad. Spread out the abilities. Think, do I really want all 20 levels? Rangers get Hide in Plain Sight at 17th level. Most Rangers want that ability bad. So they stick it out for 17 levels. What does this archer get past 12th? Nothing.
• Weapon Specialization is for fighters who want to use skills that subtract from their BAB, (ie:Power Attack), while still keeping a good hit ratio. It is just plain boring for any other class. Snore...

Ideas: Build a full archery Ranger. Then think of ditching the animal companion and getting something else instead. Like: Hamstring Attack, Attack vs. Reflex, Success = Targets speed reduced to 10 feet for (1+Wisdom) rounds.

Rating

Power - 1/5 - I give this class a 1 out of 5 because it's too front loaded. -- saint23thomas -- 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 3/5 - I give this class a 3 out of 5 because some of the ability names need work. -- saint23thomas -- 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 2/5 - I give this class a 2 out of 5 because of many minor errors. -- saint23thomas -- 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 2/5 - I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it has little flavor. -- saint23thomas -- 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the actual page with your rating. It doesn't do that automatically. --Badger 02:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)