Driver 325 yards wrote:
IPS 5 levels early is a big part of it, but even just having that bonus feat at 2 helps a fair bit. Ranger does have 5 extra feats over 20 levels, not 3, unless you're only looking at the first 10 levels (in which case the Barb never even *gets* IPS).
Good points on the rage powers, I had thought Reckless Abandon was melee attacks only, but it's not. I'm skeptical of the practicality of the Imp. Snap Shot + Unexpected Strike thing, it's fairly situational if you will actually use nearly all your AoOs or not. Bear in mind the same move action only provokes one time from a foe, no matter how many threatened spaces of his you leave during that move.
That's not to discount the Barb archer, though. I think now that you've pointed out Reckless Abandon, you could make a pretty decent volley archer. Using Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Clustered Shots, and converting the attack bonus from RA into damage with Deadly Aim.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
StreaOfTheSky (cool name by the way) I like Urban Barbarian because it gives the build options. When he needs more accuracy he has it. If he needs more damage he can pump up strength and use adaptive bow.
Thanks. I suppose, if you care about options that much. If you use normal rage, you can get a bigger ability boost to str, possibly allowing you to put less in the Str stat and slightly more in Dex and come out even or ahead of the urban barbarian on attack and damage no matter which stat he boosts. That was my reasoning. I also just plain hate that crowd control class feature swap they force on you.
If I were making a Barbarian archer, I wouldn't take the weaker bonuses of Urban Barbarian just to boost my to-hit.
I'd do normal rage and just get the Adaptive property (flat 1000 gp cost; bow always matches your current str bonus) placed on my bow.
But it is pretty suboptimal. You get no bonus feats on a build that badly needs them, no early entry for feats like Ranger and Zen Archer get, and no spell support like Gravity Bow (Ranger). And Fighter just gets much better attack/damage boons than you.
You can try to overcome these things as your above build does, such as getting UMD as a class skill and wand of gravity bow, but it's still not as good / takes a higher level to be available/viable.
OP, I also don't like how you refer to rage cycling in the handbook as eating 2 rounds of rage per round of use.
I get that by strict, stupid RAW, it is a free action to end rage and thus it can't be done out of turn. But that's blatantly moronic and not intended, as with that ruling, unless you only have 1 round of rage left for the day, it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually use only 1 round of rage, despite that being how it's supposed to be incremented.
"Well, you can end it at the end of your turn you activated it on."
Yeah, but that's not really a "round" of rage, either.
If nothing else, mention that it should *not* be so, and that you should discuss it with your DM. This doesn't just affect rage cycling. It means any combat you rage, unless you expect that the combat's end is imminent and pre-emptively cease raging on your turn, you'll be stuck with an extra round charged every single combat you rage in.
Coinshot Colton wrote:
Because they count as both Human and Orc (and Half-Orc, when appropriate) for all effects, which includes favored class options. The FAQ has clarified this.
It depends on how often you face touch attacks, really. But you can get Ghost Rager at 6 and FW at 10, so I never thought of them as being in competition...
Much harder is choosing among FW, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem, since all 3 are amazing and 10th level. And whichever one you choose last has to wait until 13th (if not getting Dazing Assault) or 14th level to be taken, because nothing tops CaGM at 12th. (11th level feat going towards 2nd choice).
Sir Culer wrote:
One thing I didn't see in the guide that our Barbarian uses quite regularly is the Cleaving Finish feat. It's totally worth it to pursue this if you have tons of killing to do. the best part is that it also works on Attacks of Opportunity.
No. It's a very mediocre feat and is not worth wasting a worthless feat to pick up. I especially hate it because in D&D 3E "Cleaving Finish" was called "Cleave."
A much better version of Cleave wrote:
Definitely Witch Hunter.
Note: You can't get Dazing Assault at 11, it requires BAB +12. Annoying, I know. So CAGM at 12, DA as your level 13 feat.
On the plus side, it means you can dip Oracle 1 level for Lame Curse and rage cycling and still get CAGM right in time for Dazing Assault...
Your rage power selection sounds good, except for Clear Mind, Eater of Magic largely obsoletes it. Flesh Wound is also good if you're an Invulnerable Rager. And Ghost Rager is also very nice for shooting your touch AC up high.
Well, I think Shield Master getting rid of TWF penalties and the penalty for having a 1H weapon in the offhand (such as another heavy shield) is fine and intended. You know, remove the TWF-based penalties.
I would never try to claim it negates power attack penalties, spell debuffs, shaken condition, etc... The "RAW" might be ambiguously worded, but that's pretty clearly not the intent...
I think Flesh Wound + Invulnerable Rager archetype already does a pretty good job of preventing damage, albeit once/round. Flesh Wound halves it and makes it nonlethal; IR gives you doubled DR against nonlethal. A Barb 10 would turn 20 damage into 0, or 25 into 2.
If you need more protection, go with CaGM + Dazing Assault.
It's only for the squares you actually are tumbling. It's the tumbling that slows down your movement, and you're not doing somersaults and rolls for the entire move action (unless...you are).
Paizo also took out a lot of clarifying and supplemental text that I guess they thought wasn't important (see also: the vertical reach info for the Jump skill) but is actually super helpful. Take a gander at the 3E tumble skill.
"Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement..."
And under Action:
*Shrug* Makes it more clear to me that you're only tumbling as part of the move action, so the speed penalty only applies to that portion, much as the penalty of difficult terrain would only apply to the portion of your movement you actually spent getting through it.
I think you vastly underrate Dazing Assault and Dreadful Carnage.
DA is amazing combined with CaGM, especially considering you resolve CaGM AoOs before the enemy actually attacks. The DC really isn't that bad... 22 when you pick it up around 12th level, 30 by level 20... Not much worse than a caster's DCs. In any case, AoOs are at full BAB, so the -5 is fine, and you're potentially robbing the enemy of his entire turn (if you daze on the first try; otherwise it's still at least preventing damage on a subsequent counter-attack during the foe's full attack). The main knock against it is you don't want to power attack *and* use this, so it's costing you some damage output.
Dreadful Carnage is amazing, it's a free area demoralize every time you drop someone, which should be happening a lot. Cornugon Smash is single target, it really doesn't even compare. Your mileage may vary, depending on the quantities of foes your DM uses against you, though. Still, the only real negatives to DC are its high level and requiring the atrocious Furious Focus.
I also think you vastly overrate Antagonize. The nerf makes it useless. You spend your action to *maybe* make the enemy waste his action throwing a rock at you or whatever. It's only good when your party has a huge action economy advantage over the enemy (ie, solo enemy) to the point where throwing your turns into the garbage to take away the enemy's is unquestionably a great idea. Those situations are generally pretty in the bag anyway. And casters just do that stuff much, MUCH better. Leave it to them. And you can only use it once on a given foe, too.
Pre-nerf, it forced the enemy to close to melee with you, which made it actually useful beyond yet another way to make an enemy lose his turn. (And an extremely underpowered way to do it, to boot).
Post-nerf, it's average at best. I'd say subpar.
Indeed. I love a good railroad. If it helps to ensure a good plot and isn't too blatant/oppressive, I'm all for it. For me, "sandbox" is the 4-letter word. Because it's become synonymous with groups putzing around for hours hemming and hawing about what to do next, and DMs trying to half-assedly throw an encounter together on the spot because it's impossible to actually be prepared for anything. I'm sure it's not always a bad thing, but I've always enjoyed the railroaded games more than the sandbox ones.
Note: Railroading the party in order to make your DMPC(s) perform awesome things and take up the spot light is most decidedly *not* an example of railroading for enjoyment and a good plot.
It looks like it works, by RAW. You're getting a fire spell that is not on the bard list.
However, it's a terrible feat.
Bard just plain doesn't get many damage-dealing spells, and fire is the worst energy type for a spell to be anyway. Plus, in the specific case of the bard, most of the damage spells are sonic, which is the most sought after / premium energy type and thus the spells tend to be weak for their level to make up for it. Making them fire is a sucker's bet.
And bard is a poor class for summoning, his spell levels just don't keep up like a wizard or cleric does, and he doesn't get to jump to higher level SM spells like a Summoner does.
TL;DR: It works, but you shouldn't bother taking it.
It is overpowered.
The problem is, there is already a class called wizard that is an int-based prepared caster with a MUCH better spell list, and an extra spell slot per level (specialist) and various school powers that are just as strong, except in a defensive sense (like Teleport Conjuror's ability to teleport as a swift Su ability, and thus escape any grapple).
Slumber is...basically the only good reason to play a witch over a wizard. The cackle-based stuff is very limited and too easy to disrupt (short-ranged + need a move action to keep it going = Let's Play Kiting 101), and...that's it for offensive based hexes, along with a spell list vastly lacking in good offensive spells.
I don't particularly like save-or-die abilities, but unfortunately the witch class is *built* out of them. The spell list is so limited, you basically have to play it that way if you want to contribute offensively.
Short of a complete overhaul of the class, my advice would be to just give up on the idea of using single boss encounters. Witches are largely single target -based, at least the first 10 levels, so using big groups of lesser foes will make those single target screwjob hexes/spells less meaningful. It also gives more allies to wake up the sleeping victim, though a smart witch will ready/delay until just before an ally already in melee range (so he can do the coup de grace) has a turn come up. I suppose you could counter her readying with enemies readying to wake up an ally, too.
An Eidolon can get pretty stupidly high; as long as you can use Wild-Caller with Synthesist, I bet Synth is one of the best routes.
16 base, at level 1 (bipedal)
We're already at a Strength of 57, and the only evolution points we've spent is 10 on the Gargantuan size. You can then blow 4 points per +2 Str you want to add on top of that. Half-Elf and Wild-Caller gives you an additional +10 points by level 20, on top of the 26 you get normally. And any extra evo feats you take, though 4 feats for +2 str is kind of a waste.
Does your DM play by strict RAW? If so, Paladin is correct.
However, Alchemists not technically having a CL is a fluff decision mostly, and tends to screw them over massively, as the game assumes anyone who has "spell" slots is a spellcaster, so they end up missing out on the avalanches of caster goodies until someone remembers to throw them a bone.
More numbers of foes is a decent way to extend a fight. Having them come in waves, rather than all present right at the start, helps prevent all of them from being easy bait for a big area of effect spell and means the sheer amount of turns and actions they get won't be overwhelming at the start.
Having a "villain team" of 2-4 guys about on par with a PC each is also good. Trying to have a singular boss is very hard to pull off well, it's such a thin line between "too powerful, party gets massacred" and "not quite strong enough to make up for the party getting 4x as many turns as him." When those fights do work out, sheer dumb luck has as much to do with it as anything.
Basically, anything that isn't a spell is either a "special attack" or "special quality." Attacks are generally offensive and/or active in use, qualities are generally defensive and/or passive in use. It's poorly defined, and dates back to 3E's terminology, but that's the gist of it. The mechanical aspects of a creature (sub)type are usually all qualities, unless it gets something like a smite evil attack. Monsters simply had them divided as such in their stat blocks; for PCs you had to make a best guess. For example, (and possibly counter-intuitive to what you might expect) a Barbarian's rage would be a "special attack" based upon the fact that wolverines (and pretty much every other monster w/ a Rage ability) lists it under "attack."
And yes, class features most certainly were considered to fall under the same special quality/attack dichotomy as monster abilities were. Otherwise lines of rules like this one from Alter Self wouldn't exist:
You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.
Btw, special qualities and special attacks were further subdivided into Extraordinary and Supernatural, though at least on that front the class feature descriptions usually told you what they were. (And also included SLA's, see edit).
And that ends this history lesson. Since the terms used in PF today all came right from 3E, IMO it's useful to know what they at least used to mean. Hell if I know if PF snuck in some tiny change to any of it.
EDIT: My bad, spell-like abilities also were covered by the attack/quality dichotomy, and it looks like they were pretty much universally special attacks.
I realize that it doesn't work by "strict RAW," because paizo chose to use the moronic, overly broad "alters" instead of something like "replaces" when describing archetype class feature compatibility.
But IME, absolutely zero home games play by 100% rigid strict RAW, even when the DM claims he does. Because strict RAW leads to all kinds of stupidity, like the things that dying *doesn't* restrict you from, how temporary ability bonuses work, etc...
Heck, it's a problem in D&D 3E (but I don't think PF fixed it) whereby strict RAW, because all the means to ignore concealment tend to speak to ignoring the miss % aspect of it (which is what concealment and total concealment are defined as, btw), by strict RAW a rogue is largely screwed against Obscuring Mist forever and always. As things you would expect to help, like Improved Precise Shot or the Seeking weapon property, don't actually negate "concealment", but the "miss chance of concealment." So, the enemy is technically still "concealed," even if it's for 0% and has no mechanical effect of its own anymore other than not playing nice with things foiled by the foe having concealment.
EDIT: Another recent example of strict RAW in action.
Did the FAQ say that Sohei replaces the normal bonus feats? I thought the intent was that they ADD to them.
In any case, assuming the latter interpretation, I like to combine Sohei with MoMS. It wouldn't work in PFS, but in any home game, the DM is unlikely to go along with the bs argument that "adding new options counts as changing the class feature, gah hyuk!" and rule they can't combine.
Eh, I'm not sure I really like it enough to do a full guide. It has no settings between high and off. Either you feel useless a lot, or the DM gets upset and probably bans your character anyway.
I would have preferred if you got terrain dominance's FE bonus on all your favored terrains, and rather than stacking a single one higher and higher, as favored terrain works, you instead got a small to moderate bonus that grew slowly and each time you gain FT, you simply add another one to the list that you can apply the bonus to.
If you wanted to keep the whole "this class gives you plus [numbers] to attack and damage" as its main mechanic at all, which I probably wouldn't.
I got excited about it to begin with because:
1. It is literally the only noncaster prestige class in all of PF that doesn't utterly suck. Still to this day. You can actually take every level in it and not end up obviously weaker than you would have been just advancing in your base class.
2. The insane numbers, while kind of distasteful, do allow you to make otherwise terrible, un-workable builds possible.
You mean this thread? If so, yes.
I wrote that before I knew of the Instant Enemy trick, though. So I suggested Guide Ranger instead of normal b/c favored enemy seemed pointless. Obviously, my opinion has since changed dramatically.
Had to google search for it, I kind of forgot about it and never finished it, because not a single person even replied. :(
I don't know what is native only to astral. Though, you could always build around your 2nd terrain dominance, and max that one out, rather than the astral, which you're only getting 1st because of the dimensional feats. It's not like you're going to be able to buy/find a wand of Instant Enemy until level ~ 10-12 anyway. It costs 15,750 gp (CL 7 [Ranger 10 has CL 7] x level 3 x 750). That's 315 gp per charge, btw.
In any case, aside from Astral which you're taking for the above reason, I wouldn't even really look at the special ability they grant. Getting massive attack and damage bonuses kind of trumps *any* of those options, so you're best off picking terrain types the most enemies you fight originate from. And even for the two terrain dominances you're not maxing out, the increases from Rogue's terrain mastery and the HW capstone alone mean they'll still be sizeable.
And yeah, if you can find a decent option to replace the companion with, you should. It's going to suck.
You could go Rogue 4, you won't lose any more BAB if you stop there vs. Rogue 2. Ranger 3 is nice for Favored Terrain and Endurance, but Half-Orc obviates need of the latter anyway.
In addition to what Pupsocket said (I'd actually enter as a multiclassed Ranger/Rogue, Ranger offers some useful stuff and Rogue means the ability to take Extra Rogue Talent over and over to really pump up those favored terrain bonuses), you might want to keep the favored enemy and spellcasting. Even if the FE seems like a complete overlap and waste with Terrain Dominance, and you don't actually have enough Ranger levels to cast spells.
Having Ranger spellcasting means you don't need Use Magic Device to use Ranger spell wands. So, you can eventually buy a wand of Instant Enemy.
Having a Favored Enemy means you can actually benefit from the spell. The spell treats the target as one of your favored enemies for all purposes. Like, say...its native terrain type. You following? The terrain type you've been racking up a +20 or so bonus in, and have terrain dominance tied to (which lets you use that massive terrain bonus as a FE bonus against creatures from that terrain type)...you can declare whatever creature you use the wand on to count as being from there.
And then, curb stomping commences.
Of course, a charge from a level 3 spell wand is very expensive, so you'd want to save this for important/boss enemies. But it's a nice way to ENSURE you get your terrain dominance working when you really need it to.
tony gent wrote:
...I haven't. I should know, most of my characters have a charisma penalty. I roleplay them appropriately. Getting to hurl insults and have no filter between brain and mouth is fun. It's a feature of low charisma to me, not a bug! :)
Also, what Zhayne said.
That is a TWF penalty, why wouldn't it be reasonable?
If I made a shield master build, it'd be dual heavy shields at no penalty. Though I suppose once you get Bashing Finish, a heavy in the main hand and an 18-20 crit weapon that's been made keen is more effective. The crits triggering main hand shield bashes.
Point buy is better. Rolling is unfair and leads to massive power disparity between characters.
The only way rolling prevents "dump stats" is if none of the rolls come out low. If they do, it can easily and often lead to MORE dumping of stats, as they can go below 7 and the player almost certainly didn't get an array he's that happy with, so any low scores definitely will get put into charisma or whatever.
Fun Fact: In D&D 3E, there was an explicit rule right at the start of the book that said if your rolls came out too low (if the sum of your modifiers was less than +1, or if you had no score above a 13) you can immediately reroll the entire set. Since this was a guideline for character creation, it wasn't included in the OGL (you need to actually crack open a Player's Handbook to find it), and thus...it seems PF did not carry over this extremely vital rule.
I'm sure the clause about not taking penalties was supposed to be TWF penalties only, and they just weren't specific enough. I wouldn't try to make a Shield Master build w/ power attack, expertise, etc... and try to pass it off as taking no penalties, doubt your DM would approve.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Also, unless there is some ability I'm unaware of (and I'm sure there are), you cannot bash with a tower shield.
IIRC, the tower shield fighter archetype lets you, and that's why he mentioned Fighter.
Otherwise, Ranger is a much better class for shield fighting, due to early entry on both of the key feats.
A thrower build in PF is un-workable. If you can import a ton of 3E rules and options, it's much more viable.
- Switch Far Shot to how it worked in 3E; in PF it hoses the very throwers who were the only people who took it to begin with.
- Allow 3E style ability-enhancements-in-multiple-slots-without-inflated-cost. Even better, allow Magic Item Compendium's rules that let you put the "big six" magical item effects, including stat enhancers onto another item without a 50% cost increase. Throwing needs both strength and dex, this change hurt them badly. Especially since a near-essential item, the blinkback belt, ALSO takes the same freaking slot.
- Alternatively, get the Brutal Throw feat allowed. It simply let you use str instead of dex for thrown attacks.
- Try to get the gloves of endless javelins from MIC. Gives you infinite +1 javelins (they dissolve after being thrown or dropped) for like 6000 gp. After level 6 or so, not being able to afford a ton of magical thrown weapons will be a huge hindrance.
- Try to get the gauntlets of extended range from MIC. They're only like 2000 gp and double your range with thrown weapons. This stacks with Far Shot.
- Try to get the Master Thrower prestige class allowed. One of the few throwing-specialized classes there is, in either edition. Gives a bunch of new tricks, like free tripping when you hit.
- Try to get the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class allowed. The 4th level ability is crucial if not using the gloves (above), as it allows you to full attack with the same thrown weapon, by bouncing it back to your hand (effectively, works like blinkback belt). It also lets you use a swift to treat thrown attacks as melee, using str for everything and so forth. 4 levels of the class alone actually solve most of throwing's problems.
Also helpful, though not throwing-specific is the Goggles of Foe-Finding from MIC. A couple thousand gold, lets you ignore non-total cover. Because while some archer classes get a 5-level early entry on Imp. Precise Shot...you do not.
I suppose Lemmy's suggestions, if you can swing ALL of them, are also a decent solution.
The argument isn't much different from the common one I've seen made that a medium person can wield a small sized longspear in one hand, pay the inappropriate size penalty on attack rolls, and have a 1-handed reach weapon.
I don't have a problem with it, myself. All the other styles of combat, whether you choose to use that other hand for TWF, for a shield, or nothing at all -- are underpowered compared to 2H fighting anyway.
But a lot of people go nuts about it.
I prefer to just combine CaGM with Dazing Assault. Sure, you won't do nearly as much damage. But that's because there's less attacks for you to counter. And why are there less attacks for you to counter? Oh, right...because you robbed them of their turns before they could even complete their first attacks! :D
I really have to re-iterate how insanely expensive 1 round of performance per word is. Maybe I'm missing something, but even at mid and upper levels, bardic performance hardly feels like a bottomless pit of a resource. Spending like 10 rounds of it for low to mediocre damage split among separate targets is just never worth it. Ever. For a 10th level Bard with Cha 22 after items (which is pretty good charisma unless he's not bothering with physical attacking at all), those 10 rounds are more than one third of his 28 rounds of performance per day! That's CRAZY!
A swift is more valuable than a move. You can cast spells and activate many class features with a swift; there are very few you can activate with a move.
And there is no RAW option to swap actions. I do allow people to trade their standard action for another swift, myself. That is a reasonably painful cost to pay.
I can't stand playing low int characters, so I seldom do that.
However, more than half of my characters do have Cha 8 or lower. Beyond the obvious mechanical reason of "more stat points," there are a few reasons for this:
1. It's FUN for me to play a snickety old coot, an acerbic sharp-witted insult machine, a horrific looking freak of nature, or however else I end up implementing the low charisma into my character. After spending all day holding my tongue when I think of smart ass remarks, it's utterly, gloriously liberating to get to role play someone who has no filter between brain and mouth.
2. I am not charismatic in real life. And while RPing things very different from you is great and noble and all...I've found in practice it just doesn't work out so well. Charisma, sadly, is the one stat -- to a FAAAAAAAR greater extent than any other stat -- that you're expected to supplement with player knowledge/ability. You want to break down a door, the DM doesn't make you bench press 200 pounds. But if you dare to want to gather information from some townsfolk, or talk someone down from violence...you'd best start saying something eloquent. It's really not fair. I don't mind if the DM requires you to say *something*, but it should have absolutely zero bearing on your skill check. But in nearly every case, the DM's I've had have not let me influence NPCs without saying something convincing.
It actually does kind of suck; several of the characters I'd like to and have tried to play are high charisma. But I always end up regretting trying it.
The limitations of always a standard action and one target per word are restrictive enough. Having to pay one round of performance PER WORD is just ridiculous over-nerfing. The damage may scale now, but it still pales in comparison to damage other classes can be doing at the respective levels, and using the ability means attacking multiple foes instead of focus firing on one guy, which is inherently a weak option already due to critical existence failure (until a foe is dead or incapacitated, he fights just as hard at 1 hp as at 100, so it's best to just pound one foe till he's down).
I don't particularly like having the music only be useful vs. hordes of foes, but if that is the direction the design team wants to take it...
Well, if you do 2 monk levels, at least make full use of them and don't spend a bonus feat on Crane Style, like I said above.
For feats, I like Enforcer + Blade of Mercy trait on a Dervish of Dawn. Do +1 damage and free intimidate on every hit if you do nonlethal (at no penalty), and you frighten if you score a crit. You could easily drop Maestro trait to make room for that.
You can also look at Osyluth Guile (great feat for a high charisma tank). And every Bard's 11th level feat should be Discordant Voice. +1d6 damage for you and all allies basically every round of combat.
For items...I don't know many stand outs, but there are the very cheap boots of feather stepping to ignore difficult terrain. And the very expensive headband of aerial maneuvering to get both a mental stat bonus (Charisma, of course) and limited flight.
Any bonuses to attack rolls increase CMB as well. So if you're focused on trip and disarm, you can do both with your weapon...grab weapon focus, the greater version, and other attack boosts.
You could also take Additional Traits to get two traits. The Bred for War trait gives a blanket +1 to CMB for all maneuvers. The Heirloom Weapon trait gives a +2 on a specific maneuver when using that heirloom weapon (the two trait bonuses wouldn't stack).
Also, if you're actually starting at level 7 or higher, you don't even NEED to enter monk to get Crane Wing:
The monk dip is more helpful if starting at a low level. As you get higher and higher...yeah, paying 4 feats kinda sucks. But it's worth it to not lose casting and performance progression. The higher level you go, the more you'll regret dipping out. Especially when Aasimar has that lovely +1/2 level to inspire courage favored class option. (Could be any perform, but...for you it's definitely going to be IC).
Enter MoMS at an odd level. Have the Dodge feat already.
Take Crane Style as your general feat for advancing to an odd level, now that monk has provided you Improved Unarmed Strike.
Use the monk bonus feat to immediately grab Crane Wing.
If you should decide to put another level in monk (I wouldn't), grab Crane Riposte with that bonus feat.
Or, if ANY other 2nd or 3rd style feat looks remotely interesting to you, hold off on your 2nd monk level till you have the pre-reqs for that base style feat, then take it your next odd level and re-enter monk 2 at that point, to immediately grab that later style feat.
You'd want to use Gravity Bow, for sure. So Greater Vital Strike would be adding 6d6 to your normal 2d6, and definitely Deadly Aim since you're only solo shotting anyway. If you actually buy a large bow and get an enlarge person (not enlarged from the spell, an actual large bow that you...I guess toss from one hand to the other so the worthless enlarge magic leaves it) and apply gravity bow...man, you like prep rounds! But then you're up to 3d6 base, so GVS is then adding 9d6.
Even optimized as much as possible, it's not going to be worth it. Volleying with rapid and manyshot is just too good, and requires far less effort, prep rounds, and spells.
I really think Arrow Eruption is a cool spell. But...it's just too weak for Ranger level 2, it's never worth using. Rangers really should have gotten it at a reduced level, it's ridiculous they get it at the same level as wizards do. Either that, or leave it Ranger 2, boost it to Sorc/Wiz 4, and make its casting time a swift action.
...Why did you take all 10 levels of Horizon Walker? If you're just going for the Dim Dervish thing, you can go back to your main class after 3 levels. If you go all 10, you should be devoted to using Terrain Dominance to get bonuses to combat against as many foes as possible. (The latter one *can* become shenanigans, though it has no real middle ground between "lol overpowered" and completely useless).