Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This balance only works, though, if either you don't care about the fate of your melee allies or your melee allies don't rush in to melee while you're doing the shooting.

Once the melee is on, you being out of it makes you safe but does so by distributing the threat you'd draw to all your friends with a premium on top.

Not usually. Not every single opponent is always in close combat, so you can move and fire. If an opponent breaks contact you can fire on them
If reinforcements approach you can fire on them. You can fire behind somone to make them tbi k twice about retreating. If one of your melee is knocked down you could have a shot to help protect them from attack. If your melee need to break contact you can help to stop them being pursued.

The battlefield is three dimensional and dynamic.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Not usually. Not every single opponent is always in close combat, so you can move and fire. If an opponent breaks contact you can fire on them
If reinforcements approach you can fire on them. You can fire behind somone to make them tbi k twice about retreating. If one of your melee is knocked down you could have a shot to help protect them from attack. If your melee need to break contact you can help to stop them being pursued.

The battlefield is three dimensional and dynamic.

The point isn't that you can't shoot into the melee (though many of your shots will be obstructed. Which of those things aren't inferior to one more front-liner, though?

Shooting disengaged enemies is less useful than stabbing engaged enemies, unless they're trying to escape and you need to prevent that.

A melee fighter moving in can protect another downed front-liner far better than one archer worth of fire support, both by being more threatening and by physically obstructing attackers.

If the whole front line needs to run for it, okay, another melee fighter doesn't help there, but a single archer doesn't really either - the enemy can Move and even sprint under fire without any special concern. You might slow down people you actually wound, but you're not going to be able to stop the pursuit that way unless the fight your front line is running from is one you could have won singlehanded.


I'll throw in one case I can think of that does legitimately welcome a ranged attacker during the melee: when there's some priority target (a magic threat is the obvious one but an escaping messenger or some kind of special weapon user might also apply) that is using terrain or the enemy front line to keep out of easy melee reach.

[Farmer]

You're really forcing a limited view. The archer has all sorts of other uses and benefits and can still contribute during melee. Saying they're no or limited use when the melee starts ignores their other utility. Are they shining as much as melee vs melee? Likely not. But their overall contribution is what needs to be looked at and whilst they aren't as good as melee vs melee they are infinitely better at range than melee (be it mundane or magic).

And if you add in some magic and give them arrows with spell effects they can contribute on that side, too.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Farmer

You're really forcing a limited view. The archer has all sorts of other uses and benefits and can still contribute during melee. Saying they're no or limited use when the melee starts ignores their other utility. Are they shining as much as melee vs melee? Likely not. But their overall contribution is what needs to be looked at and whilst they aren't as good as melee vs melee they are infinitely better at range than melee (be it mundane or magic).

And if you add in some magic and give them arrows with spell effects they can contribute on that side, too.

Yes, I'm focusing on how they aren't as good as a melee fighter during the time when melee is joined, because that is the statement I previously made, you objected to, and I am now supporting.

I'm not saying archers are categorically useless. I am saying that they really are an underperforming option in a joined melee and one usually needs to account for that by earning their keep while melee isn't joined. Which is a thing that was a problem in the OP's scenario.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yes, I'm focusing on how they aren't as good as a melee fighter during the time when melee is joined, because that is the statement I previously made, you objected to, and I am now supporting.

I'm not saying archers are categorically useless. I am saying that they really are an underperforming option in a joined melee and one usually needs to account for that by earning their keep while melee isn't joined. Which is a thing that was a problem in the OP's scenario.

In my games, players put a high premium on the safety of their own character. An archer may not have the DPS of a melee fighter, but in a "joined melee," the archer can often stay out of harm's way and still have some effect. The ability to participate in a battle, however feebly, without putting yourself at risk, is highly significant, and a big reason archery is so valuable. You might not need to wear heavy armor or learn to wield a shield if you can just Move and Attack, etc. And if your party is smart and uses good tactics, they can delay before entering melee in order to give you more opportunities to strike (unless the enemy has archers as well of course...).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gnome

In my games, players put a high premium on the safety of their own character. An archer may not have the DPS of a melee fighter, but in a "joined melee," the archer can often stay out of harm's way and still have some effect. The ability to participate in a battle, however feebly, without putting yourself at risk, is highly significant, and a big reason archery is so valuable. You might not need to wear heavy armor or learn to wield a shield if you can just Move and Attack, etc. And if your party is smart and uses good tactics, they can delay before entering melee in order to give you more opportunities to strike (unless the enemy has archers as well of course...).

Written to that already:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This balance only works, though, if either you don't care about the fate of your melee allies or your melee allies don't rush in to melee while you're doing the shooting.

Once the melee is on, you being out of it makes you safe but does so by distributing the threat you'd draw to all your friends with a premium on top.

I agree that if you want to contribute while keeping your own PC in less danger at the expense of the other party members playing an archer will do that. I find that objective concerning, personally. Unless you run an expendable NPC front line I guess?

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Written to that already:

I agree that if you want to contribute while keeping your own PC in less danger at the expense of the other party members playing an archer will do that. I find that objective concerning, personally. Unless you run an expendable NPC front line I guess?

I don't really see it that way. Party members should play different roles. The classic "tank" is built to take hits, and if your party has one you want the enemies to attack him rather than everyone else. A good melee fighter should have a high Parry even if he's not a tank per se, so again you want enemies attacking him so their attacks are negated.

You might have a ninja type who sneaks up on enemies--he doesn't get as many shots in, but when he does it really counts. Everyone wants the healer to stay out of harm's way. I would say there are plenty of archetypes that help the party and are best kept out of harm's way as much as possible. You could say that's at the tank's or swordmaster's "expense," but that's the division of labor, and it's a good one. I've seen how effective it can be in many DF games. When the enemies get close to the squishies, that's when you're in trouble.

This is all especially true if you have casters that can cast the right buffs: Armor, Shield and healing for whoever's going to be taking the hits, Hawk Vision for the Archer to negate range penalties, Missile Shield for the ranged combatants and casters so they can stay truly safe, Partial Shapeshifting (Spider Arms) for the melee fighters to give them extra attacks, etc., etc.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I agree that if you want to contribute while keeping your own PC in less danger at the expense of the other party members playing an archer will do that. I find that objective concerning, personally. Unless you run an expendable NPC front line I guess?

If all battles start in or very near melee range, an archer is a liability who doesn't properly pull his weight. If this is not the case, the archer can contribute to the melee by causing there to be fewer foes who actually reach the melee.

Say you've got a 5v5 situation, with all melee on the OpFor's side. If your own party is all melee as well, it's just a 5v5 melee once you reach each other. If one party member is an archer, then so long as said archer can drop one foe before they reach melee, you end up with a 4v4 (with archery support on the PC side). If the archer can drop two of them, it's instead 3v4 (still with archery support on the PC side), and the PC side has a sizable advantage, thanks to the archer. Of course, there's the risk the archer fails to drop any of them, in which case you're looking at 5v4 (with archery support on the PC side), which puts the PC's at a disadvantage.

That's simplified, naturally. One complication would be how to count cases where the archer wounds - but doesn't incapacitate - foes while they're on approach - not as helpful as outright dropping them, but this will often reduce their combat potential, making it easier for the melee fighters to carry the day. Another is when OpFor has archery support - if you have an archer, he/she can engage those of the foe, making it harder for them to get potshots off on your melee fighters (potentially by the simple expedient of putting an arrow into the OpFor archer's chest).

[Boge]

My point is that bow vs melee is very unbalanced. Limited ammo. Two strikes vs one per turn, not counting extra attack which can't be used with a bow. +4 vs +1 all out attack. Telegraphic attacks which bows can't do. +2 or 1 damage per die all out attacks which I can't use with a bow. Flurry of blows and mighty blows which I can't do with a bow. Parries and blocks which are typically higher defense than my dodge. Very high range penalties which negate my skill where that doesn't affect melee.

But hey, I can probably kill pigeons better

[Farmer]

Well, fair enough. You won't address the issue with the GM (and that is the actual problem) and you're happy to quote all the special things that melee can do without naming any of the archery options.

I've played and GMed archers (including currently) archers or various levels and types. They're entirely viable and lots of fun. /shrug