And I'll tell you why.

First off, from what I've seen, you have a much better chance of hitting your target with a Bow than hacking at them with a sword. My level 7 Ranger with ++ Long Sword proficiency STILL only hits 50% of the time but my bow hits like 90%+!

I haven't noticed much of a difference in damage between the two. I mean Minsc has a Two Handed Sword+1 that does 12 or so damage but he can do about the same with some +2 arrows (or even better, Acid Arrows!)

You can also attack from a distance with bows without getting hit. AND you're more likely to interuppt a mage from casting a spell with a bow than a sword.

The only drawback is that arrows can be expensive but I bought myself 200+ acid arrows with less than 20,000 gold so...heh...

I have to agree with you nOObody. I've wasted many a monster (and unfortunately many non-integrated kobolds) with the bow. With five people in my party equipped with bows, I was stomping around, felling foul beasts up and down the coast. But, when you go to hack them, you're reduced to a mere squire. Go figure. Arrows of biting are cool too. But I never dropped 20,000 gps on arrows! :eek: Of course, you gather the coin to spend, which keeps the economy strong, people employed, government infrastructure is sound, a kobold integrated into every house.... :D

I have to agree as well the only time I switch to melee is if something actully gets to close which usually happens in caves or an ambush. Some creatures like Vampiric Wolves I am forced into melee but than again I seldem spend much gold on arrows. I usually fight Basilisk in melee to although it isn't necassary but with PfP cast why waste arrows on a Basilisk.

I agree, you must have lots of ranged attacks; but two things, one - a very strong fighter wielding a two handed sword does A LOT more than 12 points. After the strength book, he usually has 19 strength, witch is +7 damage. There is no such damage bonus from bows. Two - when you face enemy archers, especialy in large numbers, if you don't engage them in melee, your mage will probly get more than a few arrows in the eye. Of course, you can blast enemy archers out of existance with fireballs if they are grouped together. Another thing to consider is when the enemy is right next to you, they get +4 to hit you if you continue to use ranged attacks. Again, the majority of my party uses some kind of ranged attack, but don't sell swords short. I've had criticals over 40 with just a long sword, no arrow I ever saw did that (well, there are arrows of detonation, he he).

I thought that the +4 bonus only applied in bg 2?

Oh and bows own swords, spears, daggers, hammers, quarterstaves, clubs maces and mages. Bring it on...they can't stop me with my composite long bow +1.

[ 10-10-2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: ryaldin ]

Bows, in fact missile weapons in general, are brilliant in this game, and they're like a gift that never stops giving. I know what you mean about switching attacks n00body. You start out a fight like Robin Hood, then end up as someone that couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat. :mad: Nonsense. Especially when you consider that in the PnP version, you couldn't hit with bows any more than you could hit with swords. It makes you wonder how we ever got so far in all of those games...

Don't feel too bad about it all though. None of the weapons in BG work the way they should, as 2nd Ed.AD&D bastardized most of the stats for them. The hammer is a good example: the one they give you is called a horseman's hammer, which does less than a footman's version. In the game the footman's should do the same damage as a mace, but it doesn't as you have the smaller one of the two. In fact, why bother with maces, when you can have a morningstar. Such a better weapon all round really. Although, if you break apart what religion a cleric actually follows, they should have faith-specific weapons rather than generic types.

//Rant over//

I have to disagree that bows are that much better than swords. If you have a sword a and shield it is much harder to get hit by a bow, also if you are fighting in close combat a bow is worthless in that. Bows are only good if you have fighters up in the front hacking away at your enemies while you shoot at them.

Bows are so superior to a sword and shield. Just think. Your Fighter in full plate, with a shield +1 and a long sword +2, and the guantlets of weapon expertise, fourty yards away from an archer in full regalia as well (minus the shield and sword) with a composite long bow +1, bracers of archery (thaco +2), 18 dexterity. Both are level one, and both have to proficiencies in their weapon of choice. The archers Thaco is 13, but the swordsmans thaco is 15. He has to walk fourty yards, while the archer, with the better thaco, is launching a volley at the swordsman. The archer also can improve the bullets that he's firing, which will improve the damage and the thaco that he doles out. Now how can the swordsmen really be better? He's at least half dead by the time he even gets to the archer.

You have to consider that you control a party of six persons. Have 5 with missile weapons and 1 close combat fighter to absorb the enemy attack. That is what teamwork is all about.

That's right, as I'm currently messing around with a fighter that has full plate, 18 Dex, Ring of Protection +1, the Girdle of Piercing and the Boots of Avoidance. His basic AC is -4 or thereabouts, and when you add in the multipliers against missile weapons, you have a real slugger on your hands. He's the one that engages the enemy up close, whilst the other guys pound away with missile weapons - bows and slings. Most mages never even get a spell off before they're out of the game. Kivan and Coran provide most of the direct artillery support, with Xzar and Quayle adding slings or spells as required. I don't really do much H-T-H combat (certainly not if I can help it). It's a winning formula for me.