Ilsare Bow

[osxmallard]

I have a question on the restrictions placed on the Ilsare's Firey Eye longbow:

Only usable by: Arcane Archer
Only usable by: Neutral
Only usable by: Good
Only usable by: Ranger

Does a character have to meet both the alignment restrictions and the class restrictions in order to use the item?  I have an Ilsarian NG Fighter who is a pure archer and it is not able to use this item.

Is there a reason to restrict this item to only AA and Ranger?

Same with the Shadon Trapping Bow - restricted only to AA, Ranger, and Rogue.

Thanks!

[Script Wrecked]

Does a character have to meet both the alignment restrictions and the class restrictions in order to use the item?

Yes.

I have an Ilsarian NG Fighter who is a pure archer and it is not able to use this item.

Even though the item is titled "Ilsare's Firey Eye longbow", the usage restriction is not by deity, nor does it favor users of said deity.

Is there a reason to restrict this item to only AA and Ranger?

Probably to give Rangers and Arcane Archers some benefit as to being the "archetypal archer" over the various restrictions their classes have.

Why isn't this extended to Fighters (or indeed any other class) who take up the role of archer? Probably because there are other benefits to being a Fighter (or the other classes).

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[miltonyorkcastle]

ScriptWrecked is "spot on." Those bows were designed to give some extra loving to under-utlized classes and combat styles, though I am aware that it seems rogues tend to use these bows a lot.

[osxmallard]

Probably bards also...

How many points in UMD would be required to use this item?

Are you saying that AA is underpowered?  Things with the class such as death arrow should really have a higher DC.  I mean, it's the AA level 10 top ability, only usable 1x/day and it is a DC-20 Fort Save.  You might be able to kill some goblins with it...

[Acacea]

Rangers would be far less common as archers than fighters even though they are commonly associated with "archery" instead of their favored enemies. Fighters are simply warriors of whatever style chosen, which may be heavy armor and shields, or dexterity and bows.

Since rogues and bards can use it anyway, making it usable by the only "real" archers as well seems not really that big of a deal...

[minerva]

I wanted to point out it was made the way it was for overall flavor.  The observation (by players I might add) that inventories seemed to gravitate to be being uniform based on items were widely usefull  by all classes.  
 
 When we made and added well over 100 items to the drop list we specifically made things that could not be used by everyone under the sun, that would give a special item a uniqueness that others might admire by not aspire to.  
 
 We could not do anything about the hardwired UMD of NWN and conceeded to that.  Yup this is a nice piece of candy meant for relatively unique class(es).  It might not be a big deal to change it but one should keep in mind the intent of the designer.
 
 My Bard/rogue is an archer as well and can't use it as rogues get shortbow proficiency but not longbow unless elf.  I concentrated on bard feats not martial ones though it would be a valid incharacter extension for her to someday learn how to use it.

[Acacea]

I was only commenting that as far as intent to designer goes, if it were designed for an Ilsaran "archer" and nothing else, then that would have been a fighter and not a ranger. Rangers are entirely different animals and actually seem less in theme than warriors trained on bows. That is all.

(Edit - and that if your bard/rogue were to decide to multi for a true archery spec (and that's it), you would be more likely to choose fighter than ranger... because what does a ranger actually have to do with "just archery?" )

[Hellblazer]

Well I'm not sure I can agree with that, as part of the ranger types are the hunters/trackers/trappers. Now I don't know for you, but have you ever tried hunting with a sword? :p

[Acacea]

Rangers are a lot of things. That is one interpretation, and they may use bows. There are special ops rangers, scout rangers, junior druid rangers, park rangers, and everybody has a purist view of what a ranger is supposed to be - typically the narrow view is that of an elf with unsurpassed mastery of the bow, which is not really the case.

Anyway, ranger ranks aside (one of my favorite classes, so limited in imagination at times!), much of the defining is favored enemies. It's a core thing you can build around, whatever set of weapons you decide to use.

Fighters are pretty much fighters. Whether they are archers or greatsword wielders, they are devoted to some form of martial combat. I never really understood why a lot of AA's used rangers as a base...if it goes with the concept, yeah, absolutely, but for actual archery training...

Anyway. (Again.) Essentially the point was that it was not about limitations, but about the choice of limitations. Limiting it to fighters/AAs for example does the same thing, except focuses on those that are actually archers.

I like rangers, just saying that just because the class icon has a bow on it doesn't make them the quintessential archers

This wasn't really supposed to be a hot arguing for the changing of it, only the reasoning behind my original comment seemed unclear based on the responses.

[Hellblazer]

The Bow icon is mainly due in my perspective to the fact that rangers in any type of games have always received a lower armor class level than warriors. Which means they tend to rely more on their nimbleness to evade the attacks, and thus are better suited for ranged attack as those are based on dexterity.  



As an aparté, it goes further back then than. The entomology of Ranger sets in the 1388 for Gameskeeper. A gameskeeper was someone who was in charge of taking care of the birds and wildlife of noble estates. Hence the tie with rangers nature, hunting and protection of wildlife (poachers).

Starting in the 1670, is when they become more known for policing areas on horses.

[G.Giant]

The Bow icon is mainly due in my perspective to the fact that rangers in any type of games have always received a lower armor class level than warriors. Which means they tend to rely more on their nimbleness to evade the attacks, and thus are better suited for ranged attack as those are based on dexterity.  

From an RP perspective I'd agree with you 100%.  From an NWN mechanics perspective, Rangers got the shaft, no horrible arrow-related pun intended.  The only class related skill that applies to archery really is the ability to cast Cat's Grace, where bow-based fighters (by virtue of feats to burn as well as specialization) and rogues (with their synergistic mobility as well as sneak attacks that can be delivered from a safe distance) are much better served.

I would of course assume that's why many rangers multiclass (or why most melee classes tend to, really, since you get diminishing returns going straight through in any of them.)

[Hellblazer]

In both cases unless you put many points into dexterity, the ranger or the fighter will not be good at it. The ab of the bow is determined by the dex bonus. Where are the ranger better off, because of their ability to cast cat's grace.

Actually if you look at both classes. They are virtually identical. The only difference is that Fighter gets more feat quicker, and have the ability to wear heavy armor straight off.

On the other hand, Rangers gets ambidexterity, spells (very few but still) and an animal companion that can help in the higher levels (post epics) of the character. And they get more skill points. Also to mention the few spells they can cast are wisdom based, so they do not get a penalty of casting in armor.

Both classes have the same ab, same HD, same number of attacks per round.

So on paper, even on nwn, the ranger should be much better. What kills it a low levels, is the lack of ac. When the ranger hits the mid high levels he will get good old stoneskin, which is a very handy spells for them to have now. That is if you don't multi class the ranger.

In melee how ever. If you take a 25 str fighter, with a full plate vs a 25 str ranger with a med armor.. the fighter wins. If you take a 25 str fighter with full plate vs a 25 dext ranger with high tumble.. the fighter will eventually win out. Why? While the ranger will be able to have a comparative ac, he will lack the ab and damage ratio compared to the fighter. So in the long run, he may or may not win the same fight, but if he does and survives it.. it will have taken much more time than the Fighter.

On the other hand, put a 25 strength fighter, trying out his skills at the bow, with a normal dex (13-14) vs a 25 dext ranger with enough str to have mighty 3 parts.. The Ranger will clearly win the archery contest. Both will end up doing the same amount of damage, unless the ranger is fighting one of his favored enemies. But the ranger will be a much better shot, due to having a higher ab as the bows are dex based abs.

[G.Giant]

Yeah, but you can be a dex. based fighter just as easily...

Ah, forget it.  These mechanics discussions can go on all day, and this probably isn't the place for it.  We're both right.

[Hellblazer]

The only draw back on a dex based fighter is that you don't do damage. Or very little compared to a strength based fighters.

But yep!

[miltonyorkcastle]

Psh. Barbarian archers are the best!

[lonnarin]

Rangers are a lot of things. That is one interpretation, and they may use bows. There are special ops rangers, scout rangers, junior druid rangers, park rangers, and everybody has a purist view of what a ranger is supposed to be - typically the narrow view is that of an elf with unsurpassed mastery of the bow, which is not really the case.

And sometimes they're drunk n mean, built like an orc, born on a bayou and dressed like a.... NINJA! WHoooooo!

[osxmallard]

A dex based fighter can do decent damage now with ranged weapons because they can use GMW on their bow and the stack of ammo currently equipped can be hit with darkfire.  The Ilsare bow is nice because it makes arrows that do 1d6 elemental... there are certainly much nicer arrows which put out more damage based on creature type, but you have to make those.  A mahogany shaft arrow puts out an additional 1-2d6 physical plus whatever type of tail you put on it as type damage.  Far better than the 'fire arrow' made by the ilsare bow, and also better than the electric arrow made by the shadons trap bow.

I found I had to add rogue levels due to the really low damage output prior to the changes... it was incredibly bad.  Combined with only using clothing, the AC is also lower than what one normally thinks of as a 'fighter' which is proven in this thread -- full plate and blades.  If I had to do it over now, I would have stayed straight fighter/archer all the way.

I was just disappointed to having looked forward to finally getting one of these for my archer and then discovering it was class locked and I can't use it unless I dump points into UMD (which I see as pointless).  If my fighter can use a normal longbow, and -only- uses a longbow, why would it take a ranger or AA to use this one.  Rangers get the dual wield feat at level 1 -- they are made for blades, not bows.

Thanks for all the inputs.

[Hellblazer]

A dex based fighter can do decent damage now with ranged weapons because they can use GMW on their bow and the stack of ammo currently equipped can be hit with darkfire.

I wasn't referring to ranged attack there but to melee.  And if you train a bow, you wont be able to have dark fire or any kind of fire put on it. Only the GMW

A mahogany shaft arrow puts out an additional 1-2d6 physical plus whatever type of tail you put on it as type damage. Far better than the 'fire arrow' made by the ilsare bow, and also better than the electric arrow made by the shadons trap bow.

It's 2d* the feather type damage. So if you have stirge, it's going to be 2d* negative energy damage versus x racial foe. If you do not train your bow. Then you will be able to add an enchantment to that. Meaning if you have a Iron Mahog stirge feathers with a fire 4, you will do 2d6 negative energy vs construct + 1d8 fire damage. When you fight something that is not a construct, in this example, you will only do 1d8 fire damage. The feathers will not give you anything when you are not facing what the arrow head is for, if an enchantment is set on it. I discovered that yesterday.

[osxmallard]

The feathers will not give you anything when you are not facing what the arrow head is for, if an enchantment is set on it. I discovered that yesterday.

That's an interesting fact, thanks.