Powerful Archer Build Questions


Rules Questions


So Im building a archer build, with rolled stats

Level 7 Human +2 dex
18 str
22 dex Belt of dex +2

L1 wizard
L2-L7 fighter

L1 Point blank shot, arcane strike
L2 Precise shot
L3 Deadly aim, weapon focus (Comp longbows)
L4
L5 weapon specialization (comp longbows), rapid shot
L6 Weapon training +1 (bows)
L7 manyshot, far shot

+1 Comp longbow str+4 with frost, shocking

To Hit = 15-4 = 11/11/6 (+1 point blank shot)
6 BAB
+6 dex
+1 magic bow
+1 weapon focus
+1 weapon training
-2 rapid shot
-2 deadly aim

Damage = 1d8+13 (+1 point blank shot)+2d6
1d8
+4 str
+4 deadly aim
+2 weapon specialization
+1 magic
+1 arcane strike
+1 weapon training

Question
So if my manyshot hits it does this much damage right?

1d8+13+1+2d6 per arrow
2d8+26+2+4d6 for both arrows

So if I hit with all my attacks I can do
4d8+52+4+8d6 for all 4 of my arrows

And if I crit on my manyshot I would do this much damage
4d8+52+4+4d6

Is point blank shot and deadly aim considered precision damage?


jyster wrote:


Is point blank shot and deadly aim considered precision damage?

No, they are multiplied on a critical hit.


The Grandfather wrote:
jyster wrote:


Is point blank shot and deadly aim considered precision damage?
No, they are multiplied on a critical hit.

So does the arrow damage look right that Ive listed?

I had just picked up the frost and shocking and shocked the crap out of the other players when I hit with all my arrows doing over a hundred damage.


Anyone else?


jyster wrote:


So does the arrow damage look right that Ive listed?

I had just picked up the frost and shocking and shocked the crap out of the other players when I hit with all my arrows doing over a hundred damage.

The different damage scenarios all look correct.


Ive been playing pathfinder for a year now and the one main problem I have with it is what you have brought up here, a fighter specialising in archer feats is way too powerful compaired to other classes. Does know one else agree?

Liberty's Edge

jyster wrote:


+1 magic
+1 arcane strike

Haha just learned these stacked :P

By the way, why are you taking that level of Wizard? You have to be an Elf or Half-Elf to qualify for Arcane Archer...


Austin Morgan wrote:
jyster wrote:


+1 magic
+1 arcane strike

Haha just learned these stacked :P

By the way, why are you taking that level of Wizard? You have to be an Elf or Half-Elf to qualify for Arcane Archer...

No you don't. Errata on the d20PFSRD site and around on the boards somewhere by James Jacobs.


rikski wrote:
Ive been playing pathfinder for a year now and the one main problem I have with it is what you have brought up here, a fighter specialising in archer feats is way too powerful compaired to other classes. Does know one else agree?

Not really. The Pathfinder archer is the first archer since 2E that can hold his own in combat. It was a long needed upgrade, compared to 3.5.

Compared to a 7th lvl melee character he is not unballanced.

Human 7th lvl fighter:
+2 Str
22 str

L1 Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
L2 Combat Reflexes
L3 Combat Expertise
L4 Weapon Specialization
L5 Great Cleave
L6 Vital Strike, Weapon training +1 (heavy blades)
L7 Lunge

+1 Greatsword with frost and shocking

To Hit = +16-2 = +14/+9
7 BAB
+6 Str
+1 magic sword
+1 weapon focus
+1 weapon training
-2 Power Attack

Damage = 2d6+19+2d6
2d6
+9 str
+6 Power Attack
+2 weapon specialization
+1 magic
+1 weapon training

Max damage pr. round is 8d6+38. Which is pretty decent for two attacks.

I have not done anything fancy here and have even had feats to throw about without increasing damage.

I have a fighter that hits more often. Does not provoke attacks of opportunity for attacking in melee and who threatens his enemies in melee. This character does not have to worry about cover as much as an archer has.

The main difference is that this character can tie up enemies in combat and can actively protect his comrades.

The archer will in many situations be a better damage dealer, especially against many weaker foes. Against BBEG and enemies with DR the melee fighter probably wins.

Two different concept with different uses. But I would never want to be without a melee fighter, where as the archer comes in as a handy 2nd warrior.

Liberty's Edge

Spacelard wrote:


No you don't. Errata on the d20PFSRD site and around on the boards somewhere by James Jacobs.

Say what?! Can I get a link for this?


Ya I forgot about the elf thing, when I wrote this I tried to make it as simple as possible.

The Exchange

The Grandfather wrote:
rikski wrote:
Ive been playing pathfinder for a year now and the one main problem I have with it is what you have brought up here, a fighter specialising in archer feats is way too powerful compaired to other classes. Does know one else agree?

Not really. The Pathfinder archer is the first archer since 2E that can hold his own in combat. It was a long needed upgrade, compared to 3.5.

Compared to a 7th lvl melee character he is not unballanced.

Grandfather, I think what Rikski is saying is that a fighter archer is always more powerful than archers of other classes (as oppose to other classes in general).

A friend of mine pointed out that ranger can take range attack feats way before a fighter (no need to fulfill prereqs). Combined with his favored class ability (not hard to figure out what enemies we'll be fighting in adventure paths), he said a ranger archer might be just as good as a fighter archer. Thoughts?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Wilhelm wrote:
A friend of mine pointed out that ranger can take range attack feats way before a fighter (no need to fulfill prereqs). Combined with his favored class ability (not hard to figure out what enemies we'll be fighting in adventure paths), he said a ranger archer might be just as good as a fighter archer. Thoughts?

I think the trade offs come from other places. Level 20 example:

Rangers get +18 total spread amongst 5 favored enemies (max 10). Fighters get +5 to every creature. Fighters also get weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and greater weapon focus.

So the fighter has +6 to hit and +9 damage against all creatures. At best, a ranger has +10/+10 to one type.

I think the fighter is better in raw damage.

That said rangers have WAY better skills, with a feat they can have a good animal companion, they have better saves, and they have a mediocre spell list.

Liberty's Edge

John Spalding wrote:
Wilhelm wrote:
A friend of mine pointed out that ranger can take range attack feats way before a fighter (no need to fulfill prereqs). Combined with his favored class ability (not hard to figure out what enemies we'll be fighting in adventure paths), he said a ranger archer might be just as good as a fighter archer. Thoughts?

I think the trade offs come from other places. Level 20 example:

Rangers get +18 total spread amongst 5 favored enemies (max 10). Fighters get +5 to every creature. Fighters also get weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and greater weapon focus.

So the fighter has +6 to hit and +9 damage against all creatures. At best, a ranger has +10/+10 to one type.

I think the fighter is better in raw damage.

That said rangers have WAY better skills, with a feat they can have a good animal companion, they have better saves, and they have a mediocre spell list.

Rangers are kind of hosed in kingmaker. Too many different enemy types available (although human is a good choice, at least early on). It seems like their benefits will come through terrain in this one.


Wilhem wrote:

Grandfather, I think what Rikski is saying is that a fighter archer is always more powerful than archers of other classes (as oppose to other classes in general).

A friend of mine pointed out that ranger can take range attack feats way before a fighter (no need to fulfill prereqs). Combined with his favored class ability (not hard to figure out what enemies we'll be fighting in adventure paths), he said a ranger archer might be just as good as a fighter archer. Thoughts?

That is right. Rangers get quick and easy access to some important ranged feats, but nothing the fighter cannot get just as fast.

But fighters should be the better archers if you ask me. In general the fighters should be better at any sort of armed combat than ANY other class. After all its what fighters do best, even if different fighters focus on different weapons.

The ranger is a terrific archer, but his actual role is as a tracker, scout, etc. and the fighter can do none of that as effectively as a ranger.

Fighters are combat specialists.
Rangers are scouts.


Austin Morgan wrote:
Spacelard wrote:


No you don't. Errata on the d20PFSRD site and around on the boards somewhere by James Jacobs.
Say what?! Can I get a link for this?

Q: No other race gets a prestige class to themselves so are their still plans on removing the "Elf only" requirement on the arcane archer? Was it a copy/paste error from the 3.5 SRD?

A: (James Jacobs 11/25/09) It wasn't a copy/paste error; it was an intentional choice in 3rd edition to present an elf-only class. And a dwarf-only class. Personally, since you can't change race once you start to play, I think that having a race be a prerequisite for a prestige class is TERRIBLY limiting and not good for the game. Removing the Elf Only requirement is a great example of errata, actually. It's an easy fix.[Source]


The Grandfather wrote:
jyster wrote:


Is point blank shot and deadly aim considered precision damage?
No, they are multiplied on a critical hit.

Specifically, "precision damage" isn't defined anywhere, other than saying that sneak attack is precision damage. So ask your GM.


hogarth wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
jyster wrote:


Is point blank shot and deadly aim considered precision damage?
No, they are multiplied on a critical hit.
Specifically, "precision damage" isn't defined anywhere, other than saying that sneak attack is precision damage. So ask your GM.

Precision is a type of damage. Some d20 games have point blank shot as precision damage. Pathfinder does not, they are untyped bonuses and therefore multiply on a crit by default, just like power attack. If your DM plays it otherwise, it is a houserule you should know about ahead of time.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

What is the feat that allows rangers to have good animal companions, John Spalding?


Seriously, how are rangers hosed in Kingmaker? Druids and Rangers are going to rock in that setting. I dont know how your games were played, but in mine we had many different type of creatures attacking us. Not just one kind so you can get your bonus.


I was wondering if anyone would mind checking out my build for an archer. It is for a Ranger 2/Monk 8. I think it will be fun, but I am concerned about higher levels. Anyway, if you don't mind a little threadjack, I will accept any critism/praise. Thank you.

my archer:
***Ranger/Monk ***
Str: 15
Dex: 16+2=18
Con: 11
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 10

1st Rgr 1 Point Blank (lvl)
Favored Enemy:

2nd Mnk 1 Stunning Fist (mnk)
Deflect Arrows (mnk)
ImpUnarmedStrike (mnk)

3rd Rgr 2 Precise shot (lvl)
Rapid Shot (rgr)

4th mnk 2 Evasion
Dodge (mnk)
+1 str (16)

5th mnk 3 Deadly Aim (lvl)
+10 move, mnvr train, still mind
6th mnk 4 Ki pool, slow fall (30)

7th mnk 5 Many Shot (lvl)
High jump
purity of body

8th mnk 6 Mobility
+1 con (12)

9th mnk 7 Weapon Focus or Vital Strike (lvl)
Wholeness of body

10th mnk 8 slow fall (40)


jyster wrote:
Seriously, how are rangers hosed in Kingmaker? Druids and Rangers are going to rock in that setting. I dont know how your games were played, but in mine we had many different type of creatures attacking us. Not just one kind so you can get your bonus.

You...answered your own question o_O

Rangers are starkly limited to how often their favored enemy comes up. What is one of their main bonuses becomes much more circumstantial.


Kratzee wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would mind checking out my build for an archer. It is for a Ranger 2/Monk 8. I think it will be fun, but I am concerned about higher levels. Anyway, if you don't mind a little threadjack, I will accept any critism/praise. Thank you.

** spoiler omitted **

...Why monk 8?


Fighters are great, but i still think rangers the best in damage b/c there pet can add alot to a battle. and if your dm allows it check this feat out it is out of curse of the crimson throne players guide. this would give u a good pet for mounted combat.

New Feat: SABLE COMPANY MARINE
You graduated from the elite hippogriff-riding school of the
Endrin Military Academy. Not only can you ride a hippogriff
with great skill, but you may also bond with one.
Prerequisite: Ranger level 4th.
Benefit: You gain a hippogriff as your animal companion.
You gain a +2 bonus on Ride checks made while riding your
hippogriff animal companion. Whenever you are within 20
feet of your hippogriff, it gains a +2 bonus on saving throws


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Kratzee wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would mind checking out my build for an archer. It is for a Ranger 2/Monk 8. I think it will be fun, but I am concerned about higher levels. Anyway, if you don't mind a little threadjack, I will accept any critism/praise. Thank you.

** spoiler omitted **

...Why monk 8?

I want a scout character, but I don't want to deal with favored enemy or animal companion. Plus, I thought it might be fun. My other, probably more optimal route, was a fighter/rogue.


Kratzee wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Kratzee wrote:

I was wondering if anyone would mind checking out my build for an archer. It is for a Ranger 2/Monk 8. I think it will be fun, but I am concerned about higher levels. Anyway, if you don't mind a little threadjack, I will accept any critism/praise. Thank you.

** spoiler omitted **

...Why monk 8?
I want a scout character, but I don't want to deal with favored enemy or animal companion. Plus, I thought it might be fun. My other, probably more optimal route, was a fighter/rogue.

Monk is really, really bad. It's not giving you anything. It's taking things away. It's giving you negative things.

You don't really need to multiclass. If you really want, be a fighter and put your skill points into survival, stealth, and perception. Heck, as a non-human fighter with ten int, take skill point for your favored class, that's the three points there. Be a human and have a fourth for whatever you want, even ;p

Really though, I'd say just go ranger if you want to be a scout. They're the scout class, after all :p


ProfessorCirno wrote:
If you really want, be a fighter and put your skill points into survival, stealth, and perception. Heck, as a non-human fighter with ten int, take skill point for your favored class, that's the three points there. Be a human and have a fourth for whatever you want, even ;p

+1. Human Fighters with 10 Int still get 3-4 skill points per level, and there's no huge penalty for taking skills that aren't class skills, unlike in 3.5. It's perfectly viable to give a Fighter ranks in Stealth and Perception. My totally damage-optimized archer Fighter still managed to out-stealth and out-perceive a pretty stealthy, perceptive high level monster with almost no effort. If you actually put real effort into it (ie, more than just skill points, stat boosts, and +x to all skills items), you should be able to more than carry your weight in that regard.

Another thing to note: only Fighters can sneak around in full plate with no armor check penalty or speed penalty.

Another: tracking doesn't require a feat any more, so any character with decent Perception and Survival can do it. Including Fighters.


Caineach wrote:
Precision is a type of damage.

Not in the sense of "fire damage" or "slashing damage", it isn't. It's closer to "weapon damage" or "magical damage". I'm not completely certain which you meant, so please accept my apologies if the latter is what you were talking about.


Zurai wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Precision is a type of damage.
Not in the sense of "fire damage" or "slashing damage", it isn't. It's closer to "weapon damage" or "magical damage". I'm not completely certain which you meant, so please accept my apologies if the latter is what you were talking about.

Precision is a very important type of damage, however, in that it's limited to what it can, well, damage. Not as limited as in 3.5, but there's still some limitations.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


Monk is really, really bad. It's not giving you anything. It's taking things away. It's giving you negative things.

I was afraid of that. I didn't want to be too worried about being the best DPR dude around, but I also calculated to hits and damage through lvl ten, and it seemed kind of weak. Thanks for the honest opinions. Threadjack out.


Kratzee wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:


Monk is really, really bad. It's not giving you anything. It's taking things away. It's giving you negative things.

I was afraid of that. I didn't want to be too worried about being the best DPR dude around, but I also calculated to hits and damage through lvl ten, and it seemed kind of weak. Thanks for the honest opinions. Threadjack out.

Naw, I understand. I mean, certainly, there's always leeway in things.

The problem is that monk is an absurdedly focused class, so going into monk almost needs to serve that focus, otherwise a lot of their abilities go to waste.

But yeah, if you dislike ranger, just be a fighter with nature-y skills :D


I was trying to up skill points, have decent stealth, knowledges, perception, etc. I had a few templates, but I will probably go with the Fighter/Ranger (2 or 3). I want to like the ranger class, but I don't like it past level 3.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Precision is a type of damage.
Not in the sense of "fire damage" or "slashing damage", it isn't. It's closer to "weapon damage" or "magical damage". I'm not completely certain which you meant, so please accept my apologies if the latter is what you were talking about.
Precision is a very important type of damage, however, in that it's limited to what it can, well, damage. Not as limited as in 3.5, but there's still some limitations.

Right. But whenever it mentions precision damage in the rules, it says "such as the rogue's sneak attack" (and, in one case, also "the duelist's precise strike"); there's no place where it's actually defined what else might or might not be precision damage.


hogarth wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Precision is a type of damage.
Not in the sense of "fire damage" or "slashing damage", it isn't. It's closer to "weapon damage" or "magical damage". I'm not completely certain which you meant, so please accept my apologies if the latter is what you were talking about.
Precision is a very important type of damage, however, in that it's limited to what it can, well, damage. Not as limited as in 3.5, but there's still some limitations.
Right. But whenever it mentions precision damage in the rules, it says "such as the rogue's sneak attack" (and, in one case, also "the duelist's precise strike"); there's no place where it's actually defined what else might or might not be precision damage.

Right. PBS isn't precision damage, because all types of precision damage are very specific about saying that they are. Unless the feat explicitly states itself as precision damage, it's not.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

drsparnum wrote:
What is the feat that allows rangers to have good animal companions, John Spalding?

Boon companion from Seeker of Secrets.

An equipped animal companion can make up for any losses in combat effectiveness. I like the constrictor and the wolf best. If you are allowed to take anything off the druid list..there are even better options.

The constrictor is a a decent grappler and the wolf is a decent tripper. Both occupy monsters pretty well.

The bonus feats not requiring prereqs is much more useful for a TWF ranger. They can hose dex and still TWF which is impossible for other classes. This is nice for equipment and starting stats.

Also, generally, the mechanic for healing, Channeling, makes pets a better option than they were in 3.5. They benefit from the area of effect healing.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


Right. PBS isn't precision damage, because all types of precision damage are very specific about saying that they are. Unless the feat explicitly states itself as precision damage, it's not.

In the APG beta there is a teamwork feat (precise strike feat) that also specifically deals 1d6 precision dmg. But we cannot take for granted that precision damage will explicitly be mentioned as such. One example being sneak attack. Also the duelist has a precise strike ability (not to be confused with the above mentioned feat) that although it seems to have the limitations of sneak attack does not specifically mention it being precision damage.

If something is specifically called out as being precision based damage, then that is what it is, but otherwise if a damage or attack is mentioned as having the same limitations as sneak attack (i.e. descernibility of anatomy and ineffectiveness against creatures immune to critical hits) then it is safe to assume that that is also precision based damage.

Since neither is the case for PBS and DA, I don't believe either is precision damage.


To put it another way, though, while certainly some forms of precision damage won't say their precision damage, they'll do one better and just reprint the dang rules FOR precision damage in the ability itself ;p


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Right. PBS isn't precision damage, because all types of precision damage are very specific about saying that they are.

The exact opposite is true -- as far as I know, there is no type of precision damage that says "this is precision damage" in its description. The rogue's Sneak Attack doesn't say anything about precision damage, nor does the duelist's Precise Strike.


I asked about precision damage during the Beta test and got this answer from James or Jason. Can't find the thread, sorry.

Favored Enemy bonus (ranger) - not precision damage
PBS and DA - not precision damage

Skimrish (The scout) - precision damage
Sneak Attack (Rogue) - precision damage
Precise Strike (duelist)- precision damage


hogarth wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Right. PBS isn't precision damage, because all types of precision damage are very specific about saying that they are.

The exact opposite is true -- as far as I know, there is no type of precision damage that says "this is precision damage" in its description. The rogue's Sneak Attack doesn't say anything about precision damage, nor does the duelist's Precise Strike.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
To put it another way, though, while certainly some forms of precision damage won't say their precision damage, they'll do one better and just reprint the dang rules FOR precision damage in the ability itself ;p

:|

Shadow Lodge

Zark wrote:

I asked about precision damage during the Beta test and got this answer from James or Jason. Can't find the thread, sorry.

Favored Enemy bonus (ranger) - not precision damage
PBS and DA - not precision damage

Skimrish (The scout) - precision damage
Sneak Attack (Rogue) - precision damage
Precise Strike (duelist)- precision damage

This is pretty much my understanding also.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
To put it another way, though, while certainly some forms of precision damage won't say their precision damage, they'll do one better and just reprint the dang rules FOR precision damage in the ability itself ;p

They don't reprint all of the rules for precision damage, so your point is moot.

For instance, precision damage is not multiplied on a critical hit, but nowhere is this mentioned in the description of the duelist's Precise Strike ability. So in order to figure it out, you have to consult the rules for fighting in darkness (the only place that it spells out that Precise Strike is precision damage) as well as the rules for critical hits.

At any rate, I agree that damage from Point Blank Shot and Deadly Aim (for example) are probably not precision damage. But the rules for precision damage are written so poorly that it's impossible to say for sure; it's up to the GM to decide.


Kratzee wrote:
I was trying to up skill points, have decent stealth, knowledges, perception, etc. I had a few templates, but I will probably go with the Fighter/Ranger (2 or 3). I want to like the ranger class, but I don't like it past level 3.

What don't you like about it in particular? Talk with your DM. A nice DM may let you keep the ranger flavor but trade out say hunter's bond and favored enemies for weapon training and armor training giving you the ranger without the paperwork of remembering favored enemies and an animal companion. You now have your masterful outdoor scout.

+1 for boon companion even the bird companion becomes pretty fierce when it gets enough str for powerattack and 3 primary attacks. Great scout if trained for the purpose. Snake companion has a great trick possibility for poisoning arrows for an archer ranger. DC levels up with you since it scales with hitdice. Wolf has trip. Lots of cool companions for a ranger.


grasshopper_ea wrote:

What don't you like about it in particular?

Mostly that I have to guess which monsters my character is good at killing. That's okay, I think I worked out a decent Fighter/Rogue. My rolls were pretty good so he has a 14 for both Int and Wis. Half-elf increases perception and skill focus for stealth. The trait that makes geography or nature a class skill and viola: Scout with armor training, weapon specialization, and with Iron Will, a good will save, good perception and stealth.


Kratzee wrote:
grasshopper_ea wrote:

What don't you like about it in particular?

Mostly that I have to guess which monsters my character is good at killing. That's okay, I think I worked out a decent Fighter/Rogue. My rolls were pretty good so he has a 14 for both Int and Wis. Half-elf increases perception and skill focus for stealth. The trait that makes geography or nature a class skill and viola: Scout with armor training, weapon specialization, and with Iron Will, a good will save, good perception and stealth.

I don't really like the mechanic of favored enemy either, but ranger is solid with the stronger animal companion doing as much damage as another party member. I would like as limited as the ability is to see it as all favored enemies get bonus of 1/2 ranger level rounded down which would be substancial if only against certain enemies. Fighter/rogue is a good combo. Good luck with that. One main benefit of ranger to me is spellcasting. In my opinion favored terrain is better than favored enemy really, you don't know what you're going to fight, but you generally know where you're going to live.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Powerful Archer Build Questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.