Manyshot now a Full Attack Action?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

What's the reasoning on this change? I though the whole point of Manyshot was to be able to deliver more than one ranged attack as a Standard action at a significant penalty?

--Vrocking Burst Bow!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

The change was made in the Beta. This is nothing specific to the final version.

No other type of attacking had the ability to make multiple attacks as a standard action in 3.5, with or without a huge penalty. Why should archery be any different? (Cue the gamist vs. simulationist arguments.)

Sovereign Court

Kvantum wrote:

The change was made in the Beta. This is nothing specific to the final version.

No other type of attacking had the ability to make multiple attacks as a standard action in 3.5, with or without a huge penalty. Why should archery be any different? (Cue the gamist vs. simulationist arguments.)

What about Bounding assault and Rapid Blitz???

--Vrocktoberfest!

Scarab Sages

King of Vrock wrote:


What about Bounding assault and Rapid Blitz???

Not core rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
King of Vrock wrote:

What's the reasoning on this change? I though the whole point of Manyshot was to be able to deliver more than one ranged attack as a Standard action at a significant penalty?

--Vrocking Burst Bow!

Read Manyshot again:

PRD wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.

For making a single attack for greater damage check out the Vital Strike feat.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
fray wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:


What about Bounding assault and Rapid Blitz???
Not core rules.

Also unavailable before 12th level and 18th level, respectively. Manyshot is available at 6th level.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Liquidsabre wrote:
For making a single attack for greater damage check out the Vital Strike feat.

The point of Manyshot in 3.5 wasn't one attack for greater damage, it was to make more than one attack as a standard action. So your archer could fire multiple arrows and still move. You know, the same issue the melees had with having to stand still to get all their attacks? Now we have two feats that give more attacks in a full attack, Manyshot and Rapid Shot. Why the overlap?

Edit: Seriously, I just doublechecked. The Pathfinder versions only difference from Rapid Shot is that you don't take the -2 to all your attacks in exchange for not getting precision damage on the extra attack. That is a worthless damn feat. At least in 3.5 version, you had a tactical choice of full attack, or move and get a couple attacks. Now you have no reason to move and attack. This saddens me.

Scarab Sages

Both state "When making a full-attack" So there's no reason I can see that you can't use both feats, your first shot attack beign 2 arrows, then one additional arrow, and all shots @ -2.

Rapid Shot:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged
weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of
your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using
Rapid Shot.

Many shot:
When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both
arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak
attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack.
Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high
Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage
bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage
reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

so if you have a +6 BAB, you could fire +4/+4/-1/-1 (not including dex or other bonuses) (Which is kind of like a monk's Flurry...)


Flurry of bows?

Dark Archive

I'm with Vrock and TriOmegaZero on this one.

I can't believe I didn't come across/notice this during the beta.

The loss of versatility to Manyshot is quite puzzling.

Manyshot has also been nerfed further by capping the extra arrows at 2. Under 3.5 you could eventually fire up to 8 arrows (albeit at a single target with ever increasing penalty) and still move!.

The PFRPG Rapid Shot description is also missing the bit from 3.5 that stated, "The [extra] attack is at your highest base attack bonus..." Does this omission mean to imply that you use your lowest BAB or is it assumed that one knows to follow the 3.5 wording? (New players without 3.5 experience might have trouble adjudicating this as it is written.)

If you use your highest BAB, that means that Xaaon's example of the +6 BAB attack using both feats would result in +4/+4*/+4/-1 would it not? (*With this arrow using the roll from the 1st arrow and restricted to the same target)

Or you could write it +4(2 arrows)/+4/-1

With just Rapid Shot you still get +4/+4/-1

With just Manyshot you get +6 (2 arrows)/+1

With the restrictions to extra damage (precision/sneak/critical) on the Manyshot additional arrow, do these differences really justify a feat expenditure? EDIT: I mean in comparison to just using Rapid Shot.

I'm not convinced it is.

I'm ok with Manyshot losing the 8 arrows part but the standard/full round action change does trouble me.

Ah well. That is what house rules are for. ;)

Cheers

PS. Side note, under 3.5 you could not use both feats together as one was a full round and one was a standard action.

Scarab Sages

I think you're right on the math, sorry worked around 70 hours this week...so I'm not all there at the moment LoL

Dark Archive

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
I think you're right on the math, sorry worked around 70 hours this week...so I'm not all there at the moment LoL

No need to apologize. Math happens! ;)

If I apologized every time I goofed, the forums would crash from the increased traffic!

Cheers

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kvantum wrote:
No other type of attacking had the ability to make multiple attacks as a standard action in 3.5, with or without a huge penalty. Why should archery be any different? (Cue the gamist vs. simulationist arguments.)

I just wanted to reply to this with my view, although I understand your point. I find it a problem with melee not having the option, rather than archery being OP. I would argue you should be able to attack twice with Two Weapon Fighting as a standard action, rather than taking away archery's (archeries?) two attack standard action.


Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
Both state "When making a full-attack" So there's no reason I can see that you can't use both feats,

I can.

That could easily (if incorrectly) be interpreted as they both require a full attack action to use. And you can't get two full attack actions in one round.

Sovereign Court

They removed the to-hit penalty for using and the range restriction, so once you've got it your using if significantly more then before.

It's not a nerf, it's just different. 4 arrows at level 6 for a fighter sounds pretty good to me for a full attack.

(I always thought that Manyshot existed as a feat in D&D to begin with just because of that one scene in The Fellowship of the Ring with Legolas towards the end personally.)


There was one difference between Manyshot and Rapid shot:
Rapid Shot: Many arrows as a full round with -2
Manyshot: Many arrows as a standard round with -2 to -8

That's resonable, since archery is already punked with having no ability to damage that melee gets.

It seems a lot of PFRPG feats are getting reverted back to their original 3.5 version -- I'm looking at you, Power Attack.

Grand Lodge

neceros wrote:

There was one difference between Manyshot and Rapid shot:

Rapid Shot: Many arrows as a full round with -2
Manyshot: Many arrows as a standard round with -2 to -8

That's resonable, since archery is already punked with having no ability to damage that melee gets.

It seems a lot of PFRPG feats are getting reverted back to their original 3.5 version -- I'm looking at you, Power Attack.

I guess the shift may have been due to Deadly Aim; with a ranged Power Attack in Pathfinder, archery isn't as screwed on damage as it was under 3.5.


Ninjaiguana wrote:
I guess the shift may have been due to Deadly Aim; with a ranged Power Attack in Pathfinder, archery isn't as screwed on damage as it was under 3.5.

Not really, as Deadly Aim is a counter for Power Attack.

Grand Lodge

neceros wrote:
Not really, as Deadly Aim is a counter for Power Attack.

Yes, a counter that didn't exist in 3.5.


Ninjaiguana wrote:
neceros wrote:
Not really, as Deadly Aim is a counter for Power Attack.
Yes, a counter that didn't exist in 3.5.

Agreed. Therefore, balance on Paizo's behalf would institute an ability bonus to damage application, not Deadly Aim.

Just logic. :)

Regardless, that doesn't explain the changes to manyshot.


Liquidsabre wrote:


For making a single attack for greater damage check out the Vital Strike feat.

I agree; this is basically covered by (Improved/Greater) Vital Strike now. Even better, Vital Strike can be used with Shot on the Run (which Manyshot couldn't), if I'm interpreting it correctly.

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:
Liquidsabre wrote:


For making a single attack for greater damage check out the Vital Strike feat.
I agree; this is basically covered by (Improved/Greater) Vital Strike now. Even better, Vital Strike can be used with Shot on the Run (which Manyshot couldn't), if I'm interpreting it correctly.

BAM! Problem solved, full experience and gold! Just take a different feat and be happy with your archery lifestyle.

Or better yet, use your extra feats to pick up both and be even more spectacular! Maybe learn how to play an electric guitar and start a band!


Morgen wrote:

BAM! Problem solved, full experience and gold! Just take a different feat and be happy with your archery lifestyle.

Or better yet, use your extra feats to pick up both and be even more spectacular! Maybe learn how to play an electric guitar and start a band!

Vital Strike is great; don't get me wrong!

If they wanted to replace manyshot with vital strike, then so be it -- take the manyshot feat out of the book! but they didn't, so my arguement still stands.

It's simple math, and hos nothing to do with picking different feats, and all about game balance. It's trivial, really, but it's the point of the matter that I'm debating here.

Sovereign Court

neceros wrote:

Vital Strike is great; don't get me wrong!

If they wanted to replace manyshot with vital strike, then so be it -- take the manyshot feat out of the book! but they didn't, so my arguement still stands.

It's simple math, and hos nothing to do with picking different feats, and all about game balance. It's trivial, really, but it's the point of the matter that I'm debating here.

Well see the main problem with your argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is that there aren't any Composite Longbows or Composite Shortbows in the game...which there totally are. With these types of bows you can add your strength bonus to damage rolls. I've seen many people do it quite often. It's quite popular tactic in fact given that archers tend to focus on volume of fire compared to melee types, so a little extra damage tends to go a long way.

Let's see here, I have a link some where... Ah, here it is: The d20 SRD on Composite Longbows. The Pathfinder RPG didn't change it much. It's 100 extra gold per point of strength bonus you want to add to your damage rolls with the bow.

So once again, problem solved!


Morgen wrote:

Let's see here, I have a link some where... Ah, here it is: The d20 SRD on Composite Longbows. The Pathfinder RPG didn't change it much. It's 100 extra gold per point of strength bonus you want to add to your damage rolls with the bow.

So once again, problem solved!

Yep, that solves one issue. I love composite bows. Having read manyshot from pfrpg I think what they were intended was a better replacement for rapid shot, even though that's not really what it was intended.

Oh well.


So maybe I am reading this wrong, or just trying to break the game, but can Vital Strike (and all it's better versions) be used at the same time as Many shot?
Vital Strike- when using an attack action you increase the die damage
Many shot- when making a full attack action you first shot fires 2 shots

so 1d8 goes to 2d8 goes to 4d8...but maybe I am misinterpreting this.

Sovereign Court

neceros wrote:
Yep, that solves one issue. I love composite bows. Having read manyshot from pfrpg I think what they were intended was a better replacement for rapid shot, even though that's not really what it was intended.

Well since there isn't an Improved Rapid Shot to remove the penalty, it does help to work another arrow into the mix. Kind of makes sense in a weird way. Plus it's automatically the first shot so it should be at your best bonus to hit to make it more of a sure thing.

Andarion wrote:

So maybe I am reading this wrong, or just trying to break the game, but can Vital Strike (and all it's better versions) be used at the same time as Many shot?

Vital Strike- when using an attack action you increase the die damage
Many shot- when making a full attack action you first shot fires 2 shots
so 1d8 goes to 2d8 goes to 4d8...but maybe I am misinterpreting this.

Well the wording seems to state that you need to be taking the Attack action, which would be the standard action version Attack and not the full-round version, as that'd be a Full Attack. Since your not taking a Full Attack, Manyshot doesn't come into play.


My group from the start of 3.5 thought that manyshot is power attack version for ranged attacks and even used it with ALL attack in fullattack actions.

I.E. 16th LVL ranger with manyshot and rapid shot can(if he wants) fire a total of 20 arrows per round at -10 penalty, or -8 with imp.rapid shot.

and we'll stick to that one in patfinder.

Scarab Sages

I'm not sure what the real complaint is. Vital Strike lets you get all that high damage (up to 4d8) with no penalty.

Isn't that, ya know... better? Sure, you can't get up to 8 arrows in one shot but still... no penalty.

I like actually hitting, number of arrows aside.

Dark Archive

Karui Kage wrote:

I'm not sure what the real complaint is. Vital Strike lets you get all that high damage (up to 4d8) with no penalty.

Isn't that, ya know... better? Sure, you can't get up to 8 arrows in one shot but still... no penalty.

I like actually hitting, number of arrows aside.

A Level 6 human Figher with Str 14, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10 (25 point buy) and the following feats (Point Blank Shot, Deadly Precision, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow), Precise Shot, Weapon Specialization, Shield Focus, Manyshot) using Rapid Shot, Manyshot and Deadly Precision will have the following attack with a masterwork +2 composite longbow:

masterworl +2 Composite Longbow +10/+10/+5 (1d8+9), with the first attack dealing its damage two times on a succesful hit.
With Vital Strike he would attack with +12 (2d8+9) or +14 (2d8+5) if he'd choose not to use Deadly Precision.
Vital Strike has a better damage output than a standard attack, but full attack routines are usually better, especially for ranged characters since they get to full attack more often.

Scarab Sages

Jadeite wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:

I'm not sure what the real complaint is. Vital Strike lets you get all that high damage (up to 4d8) with no penalty.

Isn't that, ya know... better? Sure, you can't get up to 8 arrows in one shot but still... no penalty.

I like actually hitting, number of arrows aside.

A Level 6 human Figher with Str 14, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10 (25 point buy) and the following feats (Point Blank Shot, Deadly Precision, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow), Precise Shot, Weapon Specialization, Shield Focus, Manyshot) using Rapid Shot, Manyshot and Deadly Precision will have the following attack with a masterwork +2 composite longbow:

masterworl +2 Composite Longbow +10/+10/+5 (1d8+9), with the first attack dealing its damage two times on a succesful hit.
With Vital Strike he would attack with +12 (2d8+9) or +14 (2d8+5) if he'd choose not to use Deadly Precision.
Vital Strike has a better damage output than a standard attack, but full attack routines are usually better, especially for ranged characters since they get to full attack more often.

I totally agree a full attack is usually better for a ranged attack, I was making the point that I think Vital Strike (in PRPG) is better than Manyshot was (in 3.5). :)

Dark Archive

Karui Kage wrote:


I totally agree a full attack is usually better for a ranged attack, I was making the point that I think Vital Strike (in PRPG) is better than Manyshot was (in 3.5). :)

If Manyshot would function the way it did in 3.5, it might still be better than Vital Strike. Unless the target has a very high AC or damage reduction.

Vital Strike +12 (2d8+9)
3.5 Manyshot +8 (2d8+18)
if the character is within 30 feet of his target this changes to
Vital Strike +13 (2d8+10, 19 avg)
3.5 Manyshot +9 (2d8+20, 29 avg)
This doesn't include magical bonuses (which a level 6 character would probably have), but even without them, the Manyshot is better than Vital Strike until it has to hit an AC of 23 or higher (which the target might of course attain through cover unless the archer has learned Improved Precise Shot). Looking through the Preview and Bonus Bestiary, most monsters of the CR 5-7 range have an AC ~20. The only one cleary favoring the Vital Strike user would be the Fire Elemental which has a DR (which might be negated at later levels by penetrating strike and greater penetrating strike).
Vital Strike isn't a bad feat, but there are certainly circumstances in which the old Manyshot would have been better.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Karui Kage wrote:

I'm not sure what the real complaint is. Vital Strike lets you get all that high damage (up to 4d8) with no penalty.

I am not complaining that one feat is better than the other. I am complaining that the option has been taken away.

Edit: To clarify, Rapid Shot and Manyshot are pretty much the same feat now. And a good feat does not just give you a bonus to X, it allows you to do Y.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:

I'm not sure what the real complaint is. Vital Strike lets you get all that high damage (up to 4d8) with no penalty.

I am not complaining that one feat is better than the other. I am complaining that the option has been taken away.

Edit: To clarify, Rapid Shot and Manyshot are pretty much the same feat now. And a good feat does not just give you a bonus to X, it allows you to do Y.

Both are very different feats, though the differences are subtle. Thankfully, the Ranger in my SD game has been using both feats (amongst others) very much.

Manyshot is always used, and it's a no brainer. To possibly have the first attack deal double weapon damage is a great feat, and no penalty means no worrying about a lower attack roll. Not to mention that the feat specifically says that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus can apply to each arrow, along with other damage bonuses, such as Deadly Aim (if he wants to take a small penalty). That first hit then becomes a huge whollop of damage!

Rapid Shot is secondary, but still quite useful. A bonus attack is never a bad thing, and the penalty to all attacks at -2 isn't horrible. This feat seems better than Manyshot *if* you rely on Precision based damage, like a Rogue, and are somehow remaining in Stealth.

As for the option being taken away, not at all. If he wants, he can move and Vital Strike, getting bonus damage with *no penalty at all*, unlike 3.5 Manyshot. Sure the name is different, but the effect is the same.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm, after rereading the PRD (again, still no PDF download for me) I think I understand. Manyshot has become the full attack version of Vital Strike. While it still grates against my sensibilities (I am stubborn if nothing else), I get it. I have to wonder how this would interact with Improved Manyshot, since that feat gives two attacks in a standard action that benefit from all bonus damage.

Dark Archive

Vital Strike is not a good feat for ranged characters. Even greater vital strike only grants an average of 13.5 points of damage when used with a longbow and it takes three feats to get this.
A fighter 20 gets 20 points of damage per attack from Deadly Precision and Weapon Training alone. Deadly Precsion might cost him 6 points of attack bonus, but it's still a much more viable option.
Compare a fighter 20 using the old Manyshot to one using Greater Vital Strike.
With Vital Strike, he'd do 4d8+20, with Manyshot he'd do 2d8+40 at a -4 to attack compared to the vital striker. Even without any other bonuses to damage, it's clearly in favour of the manyshotter.

The new manyshot is quite powerful and might even be more useful than the old one, but for most characters, I'd call the Vital Strike chain a trap. There are certain classes that can profit greatly from those feats (monks, THFs), but archers aren't one of those.

Scarab Sages

Jadeite wrote:

Vital Strike is not a good feat for ranged characters. Even greater vital strike only grants an average of 13.5 points of damage when used with a longbow and it takes three feats to get this.

A fighter 20 gets 20 points of damage per attack from Deadly Precision and Weapon Training alone. Deadly Precsion might cost him 6 points of attack bonus, but it's still a much more viable option.
Compare a fighter 20 using the old Manyshot to one using Greater Vital Strike.
With Vital Strike, he'd do 4d8+20, with Manyshot he'd do 2d8+40 at a -4 to attack compared to the vital striker. Even without any other bonuses to damage, it's clearly in favour of the manyshotter.

The new manyshot is quite powerful and might even be more useful than the old one, but for most characters, I'd call the Vital Strike chain a trap. There are certain classes that can profit greatly from those feats (monks, THFs), but archers aren't one of those.

I'm not seeing how Vital Strike is any worse or a ranged character than a melee one. You only multiply the weapon's damage dice, nothing else. No strength, weapon abilities, precision based damage, etc. All you do is 'roll the damage dice twice'.

So it doesn't matter if a Fighter has crazy Weapon Training or Power Attack or whatever. A ranged character would roll 2d8 when Vital Striking a bow, a melee character would roll 2d8 when Vital Striking a longsword. Add respective bonuses one time afterwards.

Deadly Aim can be used with Vital Strike or without it. The main purpose of Vital Strike is to do more damage if you move and attack. And it does this well.

Dark Archive

Karui Kage wrote:

I'm not seeing how Vital Strike is any worse or a ranged character than a melee one. You only multiply the weapon's damage dice, nothing else. No strength, weapon abilities, precision based damage, etc. All you do is 'roll the damage dice twice'.

So it doesn't matter if a Fighter has crazy Weapon Training or Power Attack or whatever. A ranged character would roll 2d8 when Vital Striking a bow, a melee character would roll 2d8 when Vital Striking a longsword. Add respective bonuses one time afterwards.

Deadly Aim can be used with Vital Strike or without it. The main purpose of Vital Strike is to do more damage if you move and attack. And it does this well.

I'm not saying that vital strike is a good feat for a fighter with a longsword, either. It's okay if you have a greatsword and rather powerful when combined with a monk16/fighter4 for an additional 12d8 points of damage. The main reason why it is better for melee characters than for ranged characters is, that the melee characters have to move more often. The ranged character on the other hand can just stand around and make full attacks. If he has to move, he might use a mount and still make full attacks.

An additional 1d8 of damage under a certain condition isn't that good, the same goes for 3d8 for three feats. Even in a core only game, a ranged fighter has enough feats to chose from without touching the vital strike feats. If he only has a standard action, he's probably better off demoralizing his opponent to have him flatfooted for a few rounds through the use of Shattering Defenses.
The only situations in which Vital Strike would be a superior option for a ranged character would be him being slowed or staggered, but unless you plan to be so rather often, it's not worth spending feats on.
For ranged characters, Vital Strike is a feat of being 'slightly less suboptimal in a suboptimal situation that you should avoid anyway'.


Correct me if I'm wrong,but with vital strike and shot on the run a stealthed character with sneak attack can: be stealthed, move and attack, and restealth with no penalties. A lot of extra damage can be had with the sneak attack and deadly aim with vital strike. Add wind/ lightening stance to this combo (for +20%/ 50% concealment when moving) and you have a very powerful ranged attacker.


Not at no penalty. This falls under the heading of Sniping (see Stealth skill p. 106). Also note for stealth characters that hiding while attacking has been completely removed (in 3.5 you could take a -20 penalty and say hidden). As Manyshot requires a full attack action you cannot Snipe with it (requires a move action). I guess such a stealth character could cycle between rounds... full arrow attack one round, re-hide with a distraction or cover next, repeat till all foes are dead.

While this feat has now been nerfed because of the cap in arrows for Manyshot, Greater Manyshot from the XPH SRD (and I would argues still valid as core) would give you the damage precision damage on the Manyshot arrow.


Wouldn't shot on the run negate the sniping penalty issue, since you are restealthing after moving to a different location? It seems to me that the penalty applies to restealthing in the same location (since you just gave away your position)as your move action. Shot on the run basically gives you an additional move actions and stealth is part of a move action.


neceros wrote:
Vital Strike is great; don't get me wrong!

I disagree. For an archer you get only 1d8. If you want to add 3d8, you need to take all three VS chain feats. That doesn't seem worth it.

OK reread the Vital Strike feat. Can it be used every round and used with Rapid Shot as well? I.E. do I get a bonus 1d8 on my highest attack each round that it hits? If so, that's different. I'm reading it as you can only use it when you make a single attack.

Over the years I've heard and experience the following: 'For archers, damage output is more an equipment issue than a feat issue'. Hitting has never seemed to be a big problem, it has always been ways to increase damage output. Vital Strike might be part of the answer.

The big loss with the manyshot feat is that you can't use it as your standard action in a surprise round. The change really limits what an archer can do when you only have one standard action.

-Swiftbrook

Dark Archive

Swiftbrook wrote:

Over the years I've heard and experience the following: 'For archers, damage output is more an equipment issue than a feat issue'. Hitting has never seemed to be a big problem, it has always been ways to increase damage output. Vital Strike might be part of the answer.

The answers are Deadly Aim, Weapon Training, Smite Evil and maybe Favored Enemy. A 9th level ranged paladin should be able to kill a juvenile red dragon in about 2 rounds (that would be 0.5 Dragons/Round).

Manyshot + Rapid Shot + Deadly Aim is a very nice combo, so I certainly wouldn't say that Feats don't matter. One just has to chose the right ones and Vital Strike just isn't one of them.

And according to Jason Bulmahn, Vital Strike only grants you one attack per round, against one opponent.


In 3.5 I had the option of shooting multiple arrows and standing still or shooting multiple arrows with a greater penalty and moving. They clearly need to come up with a feat to allow me to do this. I know that as the DM I can do it, but I am not always the DM, and anyone else may be more of a "by the book" guy than I am. Manyshot(3.5) has clearly not been replaced(correctly). It is not so much about the damage, but about the options.


HOw about an Improved Shot on the Run feat, allowing you to make your full attacks while moving?


Pathos wrote:
HOw about an Improved Shot on the Run feat, allowing you to make your full attacks while moving?

As long as there was a penalty of some sort I don't think it would be too bad.

Grand Lodge

Many Shot was broken and needed to be neutered.

And yes that is from playing it at epic levels and it was still overpowered and made the Fighter and even the Wizard stand around scratching our b@ll$ wondering why we even bothered to show up.


Krome wrote:

Many Shot was broken and needed to be neutered.

And yes that is from playing it at epic levels and it was still overpowered and made the Fighter and even the Wizard stand around scratching our b@ll$ wondering why we even bothered to show up.

How was manyshot broken? I would not touch it with a 10 ft pole until improved manyshot came out.


Got to agree with you on that, Manyshot wasn't that great as a base feat. It was nice of course, move and get in a shot with some more damage than normal.

The only REAL way to break normal manyshot is by PILING the nonprecision damage onto the arrows. Try taking a fighter specialized in your bow of choice, the bigger the better (greatbow was 1d10, getting powerful build or an equivalent somehow raised that to 2d8) and then start tacking on a ton of bonuses.

Follow by using true-strike in one way or another, and ranged power attack for full. BAM, dead enemy. It was hard in 3.5, and alot easier to do in Pathfinder since there is a literal ranged power attack feat rather than needing an obscure class ability/magic item to do it for you.

I guess that might be why it was changed, since fighters get even more bonuses now they were afraid of... *gasp* powerful standard actions for non-casters.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Manyshot now a Full Attack Action? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.