Is there a perfect weapon for the archer kit?

Remove all ads!

An old topic that never really wanted to die is making me write this topic: What is the "perfect" armory for an archer - surely - spoken in terms of powergaming and maximum efficiency

The possible choices discussed here are: shortbow, longbow, composite longbow and light and heavy crossbow.
I will not yet compare the ghost-ammo weapons "bow of the tuigan and gesen's bow here since they would only mess up the big picture, maybe I check them later.

Having played an archer through SoA and ToB I found the archer finally to cause only limited damage on higher levels. When comparing my halfling archer using a shortbow with Mazzy using another shortbow I felt that the archers damage bonusses made him well superior in ranged combat.

So my basic theories are:
(a) attack boosted weapons on archers are more effective than non-boosted weapons with higher damage bonusses
(b) generally crossbows are inferior to bows for an archer

I think that an archer needs maximum number of attacks to maximise the use of his damage bonusses per hit:
This results in the clear preference of bows (generally 7/2 attacks) over crossbows (5/2 attacks max) in general and the preference of the bow of the tuigan (one extra attack) especially. I will use +2 arrows or bolts in all comparisons.

(a) Comparing the two "boosted" bows and crossbows:

(aa) So a lvl-17 archer using the bow of the tuigan will theoretically have:
9/2 attacks @
= basic arrow damage (1d6+2) = 3-8 damage
+ 1 damage from the bow = 4-9 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 11-16 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 14-19 damage
******************************************
resulting in 9/2 x 14-19 = 63-85,5 damage

IMO the only crossbow that could challenge the bow of the tuigan would IMO be the light crossbow of speed:

(bb) Using the light crossbow of speed will theoretically cause:
7/2 attacks @
= basic bolt damage (1d8+2) = 3-10 damage
+ 1 damage from the crossbow = 4-11 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 11-18 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 14-21 damage
******************************************
resulting in 7/2 x 14-21 = 49-73,5 damage

(cc) Conclusion:
Not surprisingly the light crossbow of speed is *significantly* less effective than the bow of the tuigan. THACO with both weapons would be the same btw.


(b) Comparing standard weapons with regular attacks:

(aa) A lvl-17 archer using the strong arm composite longbow +3 theoretically can have:
7/2 attacks @
= basic bolt damage (1d6+2) = 3-8 damage
+ 3 damage from the crossbow = 6-11 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 13-18 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 16-21 damage
******************************************
resulting in 7/2x 16-21 = 56-73,5 damage

(bb) Using the giant hair crossbow +3 he will have:
5/2 attacks @
= basic bolt damage (1d8+2) = 3-10 damage
+ 5 damage from the crossbow = 8-15 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 15-22 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 18-25 damage
******************************************
resulting in 5/2x 18-25 = 45-62,5 damage

(cc) Conclusion:
Mainly due to the lower number of attacks crossbows are clearly inferior to longbows when used by an archer, even the massive bolt damage cannot overcome the extra attack and damage bonusses.

(c) General conclusion:
I think that the damages I calculated are mainly theoretical. I found it rather amusing that the *best* crossbow for an archer, that finally was as good as a bow, was a +1 weapon
However, the numbers indicate that bows generally make better use of the archers unique abilities, on a smaller scale this also applies to fighters specialised in ranged weapons.
However, I don't think this has a large impact on gameplay itself where enemies have resistances, shields and armor ....

So I cannot say which weapon actually is perfect for an archer, but I can say that bows are IMO favourable

PS:
-Another note on crossbows: there is some special ammo in the underdark that either causes 2d6 or even 1d10 damage - this will be excluded here since it is *non-standard* equipment
-This thread is for *non*-ToB stuff only, so please don't come up with "but the firetooth from watcher's keep ...."

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited December 29, 2001).]

 

This is something I have figured during gameplay. And it doesnt only appkly to archers and ranged weapons. An extra attack is almost to prefer before one more damage per hit. I always choose the weapon with wich i get the most attacks.

BTW the light xbow of speed is really good for my evil drow f/m/t

 

I originally typed a much shorter reply, but on second thought, I find this a bit more appropriate:

"But the Firetooth from Watcher's Keep...." LOL

No, that's not what I wanted to say. On a more serious note, although I do love a good Crossbow, there goes my beautiful theory of an archer with Crossbows...right down the drain. Except for the Firetooth () they seem inferior in every respect. *sigh* I will now face up to the powergaming facts and enter the world of Longbows What about shortbows...? Well, I must admit that those are even better. I never did like the idea of an archer with a shortbow.... Probably, there's no reason why an archer can't split his proficiencies between Shortbow and Longbow (beginning with ++ in one, +++ in the other, and + in a melee weapon). Perhaps, in TOB, the Archer can even get all three.... Why settle for one?

[This message has been edited by Tiamat (edited December 29, 2001).]

 

Great comparision Ragusa! Items that give additional attacks per round (like Tuigan's Bow) are so much underestimated. Most people only look at damage... attacks per round is much more interesting for every attack it basic damage + damage from kit, weapon or missile, wich is always more then the weapon bonusses of other weapons.... Maybe the lightning damage of Gesen Bow is the only thing that is almost as interesting and damaging as the additional attacks per round of Tuigan's.

 

Indeed the number of attacks is the dominating feature on an archer: From the 14-19 possible damage with the tuigan bow and arrows +2 only 4 to 9 come from the weapons - *constant* 10 points are from the archer himself ....

Left to compare are the two "special bows", gesen's bow and tansheron's bow:

(a) A lvl-17 archer using tansheron's bow will deal out:
7/2 attacks @
= ghost arrow damage (1d6) = 1-6 damage
no bonus damage from the bow = 1-6 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 8-13 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 11-16 damage
******************************************
resulting in 7/2 x 11-16 = 38,5-56 damage

However, the ghost arrows are +3 so they can hurt iron & adamantite golems.
The bow becomes more useful when used with conventional arrows:
With arrows +2 tansheron’s bow would cause 7/2 x 14-24 = 49-84 damage – given the effects add up.

(b) Using gesen's bow he will theoretically cause:
7/2 attacks @
= basic arrow damage (piercing; 2) = 2 damage
+ 1-8 electrical damage = 3-10
+ 1 damage from the crossbow = 4-11 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 11-18 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 14-21 damage
******************************************
resulting in 7/2 x 14-21 = 49-73,5 damage

As above, gesen’s bows becomes more effective when used with conventional arrows:
With arrows +2 gesen’s bow would cause 7/2 x 17-29 = massive 59,5-101,5 ! damage – given the opponent is not electricity resistant

The only thing left to clarify is wether the special „ghost“ arrows of both bows add up with real arrows or not when using both simultaneously.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited December 29, 2001).]

 

Hmm, in the discription for the Tuigian Bow it says "Gives the user 3 shots per round", not "An extra attack per round". So which one is it? If it actually adds another attack per round, I might just try the Archer. Um, kinda off topic, but does having your Archer cast entangle, then kill with the bow work very good?

I currently have my Assassin/Mage using the Tuigian Bow +1 and Belm +2 giving him an extra attack on both . I switch to Tasheron's whenever there are some pesky Golems around.

I've never actually played an Archer, or a Kensai for that matter. I loved bows in BG1, but now when you have such good THACO, you can actually hit something in melee !

 

That is indeed correct - but the tuigan bow has two tunctions:

(a) it gives 3 attacks per round to a char with 1 attack per round, usually a thief or bard

(b) to fighter-like chars with about 2 to 3 attacks it gives one extra attack though this is not mentioned in the item description.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited December 29, 2001).]

 

Impressive though those figures for Tansheron's and Gesen's Bows are, IIRC the lightning and ghost arrows are NOT fired when normal ammo is used.
(This is just from the item descriptions, btw.)

 

Ragusa: one word: Slings!

 

Good point wildfire - a shame there is no halfling slinger kit in BG-2.

Anyway, would there be one, analog to the archer, using the sling of arvoreen and bullets +2, he would at lvl-17 perform like that:
5/2 attacks @
= bullet damage (1d4+3) = 4-7 damage
+ 4 weapon bonus damage = 8-11 damage
+ 7 from archer bonus = 15-18 damage
+ 3 from grandmastery = 18-21 damage
******************************************
resulting in 5/2 x 18-21 = 45-52,5 damage

Maybe I should create one to try out how he'll perform in the game

 

Figures are slightly out - bullets, like arrows, don't give any damage bonus.

You'll never come close to the damage my psycho-dwarven-hammer-throwing-kensai can do though.

[This message has been edited by Mirkwood (edited December 30, 2001).]

 

Mirkwood, you do really believe the stuff you post, don't you ?

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited December 30, 2001).]

 

Ok, it looks like bullets do have damage bonus (strange, since it doesn't apply to arrows). I was wrong. Sorry.

There's no need to go insulting me, just because I do not have 2000 posts of spam to my name does not mean you can insult me.

Happy new year.

 

See Mirkwood, it's like that:
I have no problem with people correcting me - that's why I made my calculations transparent and comprehensible. If you had found me miscalculating something - silly for me - but corrections are welcome since they are useful.

But I had expected you to check your table before posting it - since it was so onviously false you certainly didn't. It is a question of politeness to check your statements for errors before putting them on the web. Besides, this is something I noticed while posting my sub-2000 posts

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited December 30, 2001).]

 

Hmm, so which is better Tasheron's or the Tuigan? Wouldn't THACO bonuses also be important since if you don't hit the guy, you're not going to be doing any damage?

[This message has been edited by Lord Sarevok (edited January 01, 2002).]

 

Well, IMO THACO should be the archer's least significant problem - he has plenty of it. So it doesn't matter if he's uusing a puny +1 weapon for the whole game - since the damage comes from the arrows this only influences THACO.

As for the best bow of both - depends on enemy: For normal combat there is no match for the tuigan; when fighting golems for example or when you've run out of ammo tansheron's is better.
Usually I preferred the tuigan bow for my halfling archer.

 

Let me get this straight...if I made a Fighter/Mage and gave him the Tugian +1 and Belm +2 I'd have 4 attacks per round with the bow and 3 with the sword? Hmm, so what would be better 4 with the bow or 4 dual wielding Belm with something else like Daystar or The Drinker? Hmm, let me rephrase. Oh crap. I'm not going to start a Kensai vs Archer debate. Heh. I'll just stick with longswords and scimitars for now.