Talk:True Archer (3.5e Class)

Weak?

Huh, I got a balance template on it, I wonder when that got there. Well.... open to discussion, what's so weak, what's up, etc. And discuss. -- Eiji 18:48, 24 July 2009 (MDT)

Stating a class as "Weak" is an opinion that fails to explain why you think so and gives the author a way to improve the class. If your going to template a class you should post in the discussion what elements encouraged you to place the template. Otherwise the template should be removed. -- Kildairem 22:57, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

While I don't know if I agree with the person who put up the template, I might be able to give some insight as to why he's assume that it's weak;

In D&D, virtually everyone who focuses on ranged damage (apart from two notable exceptions the come to mind, the DMM Archer-Cleric and the Swift Hunter) are considered weak. Where meleers usually have an extra source of damage, (usually either a combination of high Strength and Power Attack or something along the lines of Sneak Attack) archers have a much harder time adding huge amounts of damage to each of their attacks. The upside to this is that they can full attack from a distance, not caring too much if their foe moves away. But with the inclusion of things like Lion Totem Barbarian (that one's too cheap IMO >_>) or Shock Trooper, meleers have been able to get past that limitation somewhat, gaining the ability to deal great damage every round.

On the other hand, ranged attackers haven't gotten nearly as big of a boost in D&D, and thus are usually considered weak, since their damage rarely comes close to that of a meleer.

I hope this clears up things a little as to why someone might think that a class that focuses on ranged damage without having a great source of extra damage might be weak. That said, it might be a good idea to drop a few of the feats (you're supposed to take those with your regular feats, I think) and instead give the class a bonus to damage with crossbows and bows; perhaps +1d6 damage every 3 levels, beginning at second level to all attacks made with arrows and bolts, activatable as a swift action? (As opposed to with thrown weapons, which will stop people from jumping to Master Thrower at the first opportunity to turn those attacks into touch attacks.) So at level 7, one could activate the ability as a swift action, then make 3 attacks (rapid shot), each one dealing an extra +3d6 damage. Perhaps not exactly that, but I think the idea might be a good starting point. --Ghostwheel 03:40, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Thinking about it some more, it would probably be better for it to be +1d6 damage at 2nd level, and another +2d6 every three levels, so +1d6 at level 2, +3d6 at level 5, +5d6 at level 8, +7d6 at level 11, and so on. --Ghostwheel 03:54, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Ranged combat... weak? I am sorry but I made some kickass build with a +1 splitting force composite longbow. --Dhazriel 04:23, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Please read what I said; I didn't say that I agreed to it being weak, but explicitly explained why others might think it's weak. --Ghostwheel 04:26, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I wish the template poster was here to discuss it. As a rule, yes, melee is much stronger than ranged, though I don't say ranged is weak either. It's largely in your feat and item selection, Splitting Force bows for example solve 90% of an archer's problems. Of course some of the trade off of safety at a distance IS the fact you can't make a x13 power attack charge. Well, while I think about it, anything else? -- Eiji 16:26, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I did not said you agreed either, I just added my grain of salt and my opinion on ranged combat. --Dhazriel 16:50, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Ah, gotcha. At any rate, why not trade Eagle's Eye (which just gives extra to attack, but you're not going to be Power Attacking, so you don't really need the boost) for the extra damage I mentioned above? --Ghostwheel 21:25, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I didn't mean to cause such a stir, I just think that a template should not be added without a valid reason or explanation. I would suggest that the template be removed until the person who added it posts here explaining why they added the template. That aside, Ghostwheel you might have caused a bit of a problem for yourself, because now when I have questions I know I can get open minded and concise opinions from you. Thanks -- Kildairem 21:50, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I'll try to answer them as best I can ;-) --Ghostwheel 21:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Awesome

I GIVE THIS A 5/5 BECAUSE IT IS AWESOME

Rating

Balance - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is nothing all too impressive, but it's a basic class, and compared to those, this seems to hit the nail right on the head with balance. It is a tad bit stronger than some of the other ones, having a few more abilities than all but the monk, but it's for ranged characters. Ranged is inherently...neutered by the fairly terrible weaponry, and limited feats with the only hope being to stay away from combat, but most GMs play on maps where a melee can run up to the ranged in a single charge. Even excluding melee, they are nothing compared to spell casters. So, the couple extra abilities are just fine. --76.186.202.74 21:56, 4 January 2015 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I was able to read it well enough. --76.186.202.74 21:56, 4 January 2015 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because while it was a bit off, I did edit it to be more readable. --76.186.202.74 21:56, 4 January 2015 (MST)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because you didn't give much of any actual flavor to this class. It, however, did keep it's theme consistent. So, nothing impressive, but it's not horrifically random either. --76.186.202.74 21:56, 4 January 2015 (MST)