"Elven Archer" = any Elf with a bow?

[Firechanter]

This came up in our game tonight:
We were up against an enemy with Stoneskin on, and as it was a bloody hard hitter, we had to get the Stoneskin off him asap. Now, in AD&D2, any _attack_ degrades the Stoneskin, it doesn't even need to connect.

One of our players is an Elf Thief (10 or so).
Complete Elf offers a bunch of optional rules for Elves and Archery. One of them is a "barrage" option -- I forget the exact name, but it allows an "elven archer" additional attacks at cumulative penalties. That way, our resident elf could get out up to 5 arrows per round. Since these don't even need to hit, the penalties don't matter, which makes this ideal to strip a Stoneskin off someone.

However, we did not find conclusive information on whether this applies exclusively to characters (probably Fighters) with the Elven Archer kit, or just any random elf who is proficient with a bow regardless of kit or class.

Any insight?

(FTR, in this case the DM allowed it by way of exception, but said he'd want to have clarity before this or anything else from Complete Elf would be used again.)

[Mastikator]

An archer is someone who uses bow and arrow, AFAIK "archer" doesn't have any special definition within D&D. So yeah it does seem technically legit, albeit cheesy.

[hamlet]

If you found it inside the description of one of the kits, it is specific to that kit. Outside of it, and it applies universally.

Also, re-read the description of stone skin.

[Digitalelf]

The Option you are looking for is called "The Quick-Draw Shot". It is found in "Chapter 9: Optional Rules" under the heading of "Archery Modifications", with each option (and there are a total of seven of these "archery modifications") being available to all elven characters that are allowed the use of a bow by their chosen class...

[SiuiS]

The Option you are looking for is called "The Quick-Draw Shot". It is found in "Chapter 9: Optional Rules" under the heading of "Archery Modifications", with each option (and there are a total of seven of these "archery modifications") being available to all elven characters that are allowed the use of a bow by their chosen class...

By their chosen class? So an elven wizard who could use a bow could...

Wait. I'm remembering 3e aren't i? Old school elves gained an attack bonus, not proficiency, right?



Anyway, yes. Elves are all 'archers' darn near.

[hamlet]

By their chosen class? So an elven wizard who could use a bow could...

Wait. I'm remembering 3e aren't i? Old school elves gained an attack bonus, not proficiency, right?



Anyway, yes. Elves are all 'archers' darn near.

No, elves do not automatically gain proficiency with a bow, nor could a wizard elf gain it since it is proscribed by the list of permitted wizard proficiencies. Nor could a cleric.

However, a thief most certainly could, though it would probably be only a short bow.

Not all elves are archers. Not even the majority of them.

[JadedDM]

I agree, an elven archer could do those tricks even without being a fighter or having the Archer kit. But Stoneskin does not work that way.

[Firechanter]

But Stoneskin does not work that way.

Care to explain what you mean by that?
If you are contesting the bit about "doesn't even have to hit", let's have a look at the description:

... The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of of experience of the caster has achieved. This limit apples regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five and eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round ...

Emphasis mine, of course.
So while the first bolded bit might be a bit ambiguous (it could be interpreted as "even when no attack roll is required at all, such as per a Magic Missile"), the example is pretty clear to me: a Griffon gets three attacks per round. It doesn't say "might reduce by up to three" or anything. He gets three attacks, and three "layers" come off the Stoneskin.

[SiuiS]

No, elves do not automatically gain proficiency with a bow, nor could a wizard elf gain it since it is proscribed by the list of permitted wizard proficiencies. Nor could a cleric.

However, a thief most certainly could, though it would probably be only a short bow.

Not all elves are archers. Not even the majority of them.

But all elves have a bonus to hit with the weapon and most elves are also fighters or thieves in addition to magic users.

[Firechanter]

Ah lest I forget, thanks for the replies everyone. =)

[Scots Dragon]

Care to explain what you mean by that?
If you are contesting the bit about "doesn't even have to hit", let's have a look at the description:

... The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of of experience of the caster has achieved. This limit apples regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five and eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round ...

Emphasis mine, of course.
So while the first bolded bit might be a bit ambiguous (it could be interpreted as "even when no attack roll is required at all, such as per a Magic Missile"), the example is pretty clear to me: a Griffon gets three attacks per round. It doesn't say "might reduce by up to three" or anything. He gets three attacks, and three "layers" come off the Stoneskin.

It might have been because armour class did literally mean your armour more than anything else back in the old days.

[Cybermaniac]

I have a feeling that all elves gain a bonus for the bow, but not proficiency. Thus, an elven mage who had never picked up a bow would be better then a human mage who had never picked up a bow, but not as good as a human mage who is proficient with a bow... somehow...

[bughunter]

Care to explain what you mean by that?
If you are contesting the bit about "doesn't even have to hit", let's have a look at the description:

... The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of of experience of the caster has achieved. This limit apples regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five and eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round ...

Emphasis mine, of course.
So while the first bolded bit might be a bit ambiguous (it could be interpreted as "even when no attack roll is required at all, such as per a Magic Missile"), the example is pretty clear to me: a Griffon gets three attacks per round. It doesn't say "might reduce by up to three" or anything. He gets three attacks, and three "layers" come off the Stoneskin.

I've been a DM since 1e days and this "feature" of stoneskin has been brought up by just about every party who has faced an NPC foe wearing stoneskin. My response every time has been:

1) If your character is not a wizard, what the hell are you doing even reading stoneskin description in the PHB?

2) If your character is a wizard, but doesn't know the spell, what the hell are you doing analyzing the semantics of the stoneskin description in the PHB during combat?

3) If your character is a wizard, and does have the spell, you may read "attack" as follows: "melee attack, missile attack which would hit AC10, or spell attack which can do damage, excluding any and all fumbles." Note this in your PHB, because your character learned this when he copied the spell into his spellbook.

4) If you are the DM, you can read what you like and interpret this rule however you like. I encourage you to read voraciously and be consistent.

Of course, the few times it's been the player who has stoneskin, they bitch and complain when the NPC mage peppers them with magic missiles and they lose three or four layers in one round.