After searching I found one thread saying you can combine these two Feats and one saying you couldn't...
Can they be used together??
Yes they can, I have never heard that they can't, please point me to that thread
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
After searching I found one thread saying you can combine these two Feats and one saying you couldn't...
Can they be used together??
I believe they can be under pathfinder but could not be under 3.5
Da rules.
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: 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.
Rapid Shot (Combat)
You can make an additional ranged attack.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank 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.
My conclussion: When you are using rapid shot you are taking a full attack action, so multishot should kick in and provide the extra arrow.
|
Totally legal, and it's pretty crazy powerful when you do it.
Given what a fighter can dish in damage per round, it's not that ridiculous. The archer gets an extra attack per round (like haste, but with a -2 bonus) and the equivalent of Vital Strike for ranged weapons.
Arrows do significantly less damage (50%) than their typical greatsword wielded by a fighter, even when you factor in bows made for strength.
Their obvious advantage lies in being able to do such damage at range, where the melee fighter must close to attack. Of course, the melee fighter can gain other advantages (AOOs, flanking, and higher ground being the most common) that an archer never gets.
Overall I consider them pretty well balanced.
|
It's two extra attacks per round.
So a 6th level archer with a +1 composite longbow (STR+3) does:
Attack Bonus -2 2d8+8 (Manyshot)
Attack Bonus -2 1d8+4 (Rapidshot)
Attack Bonus -7 1d8+4
Average = 34
Greatsword +1 (Power Attack)
Attack Bonus -2 2d6+13
Attack Bonus -7 2d6+13
Average = 28
The archer is going to be able to full attack more rounds than the greatsword fighter because he doesn't have to charge.
This is obviously super dead simple but it's pretty typical regardless of how you run it down.
IMO the greatsword wielding guy should have the edge not the other way around.
Manyshot is better than Vital Strike: VS is only weapon damage,
but Manyshot is ALL damage bonuses including +d6 elemental stuff
(it just isn´t ALSO multiplied on a Crit, and Sneak Attack only goes 1x)
Manyshot isn´t ´the equivalent of Vital Strike for ranged weapons´:
You can already use Vital Strike for Ranged Weapons. Personally, I think 3.5 Manyshot was better, because keeping it WOULD have been the Ranged version of Vital Strike, but better in most situations because it uses all bonuses... Not many dedicated Archers take Vital Strike now, IMHO... (though not many of any class take Vital Strike in my experience)
Right now, I believe common usage of Protection from Arrows is what is needed to equalize Archers with Melee. Not for every opponent/encounter, but if there is a Wizard in a group of NPCs, they should PROBABLY have it available (and some mooks should have it available as potions, etc). It just isn´t believable otherwise, given the effectiveness of Archers.
The above archer has his damage calculated with point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot and many shot.. he has 4 feats invested into his bow, he SHOULD be doing far more damage than Bob the fighter who picked up his first greatsword this morning.
|
|
The above archer has his damage calculated with point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot and many shot.. he has 4 feats invested into his bow, he SHOULD be doing far more damage than Bob the fighter who picked up his first greatsword this morning.
Sooo.... suggestions for altering this in the greatsword wielder's favor?
Feel free to pick a level and take a swing at it, the archer comes out ahead at nearly every point past 4th level or so in damage regardless. Particularly when you can add flaming/ holy/ whatever to your weapon and those extra two attacks per round are doing an extra 2d6-4d6/ round.
FWIW, I didn't include the damage or attack bonuses from Point Blank which would skew things even further.
Sooo.... suggestions for altering this in the greatsword wielder's favor?
weapon focus greatsword, weapon specialization greatsword, vital strike, power attack, cleave
Also the bow wielder has to worry about attacks of opportunity. The greatsword user does not. The bow wielder needs to split his physical stats between Str and dex to damage and hit, the sword slinger only needs one stat.
Feel free to pick a level and take a swing at it, the archer comes out ahead at nearly every point past 4th level or so in damage regardless. Particularly when you can add flaming/ holy/ whatever to your weapon and those extra two attacks per round are doing an extra 2d6-4d6/ round.
I don't think thats a bad thing. The two hander is meat shielding in addition to damaging. The archer is not. Why should DPR be left soley in the hands of casters and alchemists?
FWIW, I didn't include the damage or attack bonuses from Point Blank which would skew things even further.
|
|
If the 6th level archer were feat constrained then weapon specialization would help the greatsword wielder catch up (almost) but the 6th level fighter/ archer has enough feats to take specialization also. None of the rest are going to increase damage in a single round.
Here's the nastiest bit, weapon specialization, the fighter's weapon training, the ranger's favored enemy, the paladin's smite, bardic song... all work better for the archer than the greatsword wielder because they add to each individual attack.
Also the bow wielder has to worry about attacks of opportunity. The greatsword user does not. The bow wielder needs to split his physical stats between Str and dex to damage and hit, the sword slinger only needs one stat.
Well now that we have the APG that Attack of Opportunity problem is curable :(
Multi Attributes is why I assumed the fighter had an 18 strength and the bowman a 16.
Why should DPR be left soley in the hands of casters and alchemists?
That's a curious point of view. I've never really dug into it because DPR doesn't fascinate me the way it seems to fascinate others. At 6th level the archer is certainly killing the alchemist in DPR. At 8th level the alchemist gains the ability to truly nova... for roughly 4-5 rounds per day. It's hard to compare. As for Wizards, they are a good distance behind either unless you count doing small amounts of damage to a bunch of targets which is a whole other discussion. Scorching ray is interesting for a few levels.
I don't think thats a bad thing. The two hander is meat shielding in addition to damaging. The archer is not.
This boils down to philosophy. I feel the guy who is "meat shielding" should also be the one doing the most damage. Why would anyone want the inglorious role of being the guy who stands there and takes punishment while everyone else has fun?
Maybe I didn't speak clearly. I don't think it's silly broken, I just don't care for the archer being the deadliest guy on the battlemat.
It's two extra attacks per round.
So a 6th level archer with a +1 composite longbow (STR+3) does:
Attack Bonus -2 2d8+8 (Manyshot)
Attack Bonus -2 1d8+4 (Rapidshot)
Attack Bonus -7 1d8+4
Average = 34Greatsword +1 (Power Attack)
Attack Bonus -2 2d6+13
Attack Bonus -7 2d6+13
Average = 28
I think there is an error in your average damage calculation.
Range Longbow+1, STR16
Attack Bonus -1 2d8+8 (Manyshot) (4,5 + 4,5 + 8=17)
Attack Bonus -1 1d8+4 (Rapidshot) (4,5 + 4 =8,5)
Attack Bonus -6 1d8+4 (4,5 + 4 =8,5)
Average = 34 (17 + 8,5 + 8,5=34)
Greatsword +1 (Power Attack 2),STR18
Attack Bonus -1 2d6+13 (3,5+3,5+13=20)
Attack Bonus -6 2d6+13 (3,5+3,5+13=20)
Average = 28 (20+20=40)
If the 6th level archer were feat constrained then weapon specialization would help the greatsword wielder catch up (almost) but the 6th level fighter/ archer has enough feats to take specialization also. None of the rest are going to increase damage in a single round.
Then the two handed fighter also gets other feats to try to increase his damage output, probably with things like lunge, combat patrol,
Here's the nastiest bit, weapon specialization, the fighter's weapon training, the ranger's favored enemy, the paladin's smite, bardic song... all work better for the archer than the greatsword wielder because they add to each individual attack.
and a greatsword wielder gets more out of haste, enlarge person, and anything with even minimal damage reduction will bring the archers damage down considerably.
Well now that we have the APG that Attack of Opportunity problem is curable :(
and i'm sure there's something in there to bring the two handed fighters back up to par.
Multi Attributes is why I assumed the fighter had an 18 strength and the bowman a 16.
And what about the bowmans correspondingly low to hit, unless you're assuming a 16 strength and an 18 dex.
That's a curious point of view. I've never really dug into it because DPR doesn't fascinate me the way it seems to fascinate others. At 6th level the archer is certainly killing the alchemist in DPR. At 8th level the alchemist gains the ability to truly nova... for roughly 4-5 rounds per day. It's hard to compare. As for Wizards, they are a good distance behind either unless you count doing small amounts of damage to a bunch of targets which is a whole other discussion. Scorching ray is interesting for a few levels.
Right, but all of those other classes do something in addition to dealing damage. Alchemists can cast, buff, and debuff: The alchemist doesn't just damage you when he novas, he leaves you Staggered, prone, dripping with acid,on fire, and in the middle of a stinking cloud and a cloudkill. Wizards don't just damage they SOD/SOS.. so if an archer has a high strength and high dex ALL they are doing for your party is damage...they're more damage focused than any other build and they SHOULD (theoretically) be doing more than anyone else.
This boils down to philosophy. I feel the guy who is "meat shielding" should also be the one doing the most damage. Why would anyone want the inglorious role of being the guy who stands there and takes punishment while everyone else has fun?
I like doing it, its very tactical as opposed to raw number crunci
Maybe I didn't speak clearly. I don't think it's silly broken, I just don't care for the archer being the deadliest guy on the...
Why not?
I have a character with almost exactly the scenario described in this post. He's got Manyshot and Rapidshot, weapon focus and weapon specialization. Abbreviated stats:
Fighter 6
Cleric 1 (Destruction, War)
Sorcerer 1
STR 18/DEX 18
My bow is a +3 enhanced +4 strength-rated composite longbow. I have the Tempest archer archetype from SGG replacing my sorcery bloodline so I can use Rapidshot as a standard action 7 times a day (CHA-based, IIRC).
But yeah, it's fantastic to be able to support my team. I cast shield on myself, and then hang back and rain death on the enemy. (I also have deadly shot and precise shot). My record for damage in a single round (so far) is 95.
I had to build this character pretty carefully, and getting my snazzy bow was a long, hard slog. Those things are bloody expensive. It took months of game time AND realtime before I was able to afford to get it made.
(edited for clarity)
|
We also have a Fighter Archer in our group. More often then not his is the highest damage dealer round after round. Though he is one of our couple of min/max players but even without that I think he would still be high. Throughout the campaign so far he has consistently thrown out as much damage as the Sorcerer can with his highest spells (unless a good AOE opportunity comes into play but there is always exceptions). The thing that has our Sorcerer frustrated is that he is limited to how many rounds he can throw out that much damage where the Archer does it every round. And from what I see the APG made them even better. They are a very high damage dealing class. A lot can be said for not having to really worry about position (other then for range). While all the melee are running around the archer continues to stay immobile to use full round attacks to his advantage.
In one of our one off modules we did because not everyone could make it one week. All 4 PCs showed up as archers (not planned). Too bad most of the adventure was inside and close quarters but they still dropped stuff pretty effortlessly unless they ran into something that had the ability to take measures against ranged.
|
|
Here's the nastiest bit, weapon specialization, the fighter's weapon training, the ranger's favored enemy, the paladin's smite, bardic song... all work better for the archer than the greatsword wielder because they add to each individual attack.and a greatsword wielder gets more out of haste, enlarge person, and anything with even minimal damage reduction will bring the archers damage down considerably.
Well haste and enlarge certainly, but I only listed things the character actually brings to the table... and are available every round.
Archers tend to do better against DR other than DR/ slashing because they can use their best weapon against DR/* (anything other than slash/ bludgeon) where GS Dude has to downgrade to a second weapon until he gets up to a +3 weapon.
Right, but all of those other classes do something in addition to dealing damage. Alchemists can cast, buff, and debuff: The alchemist doesn't just damage you when he novas, he leaves you Staggered, prone, dripping...
I totally agree. Archer is a one trick pony in a lot of ways... he's a DPR firehose. Actually another reason I don't care for the concept.
Again, philosophy. In my book if a guy with a greatsword is standing 10' away from the archer the greatsword wielder should be able to tear the archer/ wizard/ alchemist* to bits. I don't see this reflected in the game mechanics. Many shot is one bit of that so I tell my players (well before they take it) it's not an option.
I also don't care for the fact that composite longbow is vastly better than any other ranged weapons because I like to see some other options in game play. Many shot rewards only the archers, another reason I don't care for it.
Finally... I hate the actual visual of putting 2 arrows on a bow. I know it's a fantasy world, and people do 7 impossible things before breakfast, chalk it up as an unreasonable complaint and move on.
Well haste and enlarge certainly, but I only listed things the character actually brings to the table... and are available every round.
There's only so many combat rounds in a day. its this sort of assumption that makes fighters useless at higher levels. So what if they can Do something 24/7? you only have what.. 20 rounds a day of combat tops?
Archers tend to do better against DR other than DR/ slashing because they can use their best weapon against DR/* (anything other than slash/ bludgeon) where GS Dude has to downgrade to a second weapon until he gets up to a +3 weapon.
Nope. Economy of action wise its usually easier for thwacker to just go through the damage reduction. 5 points off of 20 isn't that bad, 5 points off of 8 is devastating.
I totally agree. Archer is a one trick pony in a lot of ways... he's a DPR firehose. Actually another reason I don't care for the concept.
Whats wrong with it? It doesn't mean the character has to be role played badly.
Again, philosophy. In my book if a guy with a greatsword is standing 10' away from the archer the greatsword wielder should be able to tear the archer/ wizard/ alchemist* to bits. I don't see this reflected in the game mechanics. Many shot is one bit of that so I tell my players (well before they take it) it's not an option.
Well, if the Archer user is 60 feet away from the Thwacker, idealy the archer should be able to pepper the thwacker with arrows and kill him before he gets close, but the initiative system and hit point system don't allow that.
The disparity is much higher between the fighter and the casters than the fighter and the archers. I don't see the point of neutering a fighter build and making casters even MORE of an option.
I also don't care for the fact that composite longbow is vastly better than any other ranged weapons because I like to see some other options in game play. Many shot rewards only the archers, another reason I don't care for it.
well, throwing has 2 weapon fighting for the same thing (but throwing doesn't work for equipment reasons) But thats something to fix with crossbows being so horrible mechanically, and you can't really fix that because casters can use them. The bow is iconic.
Finally... I hate the actual visual of putting 2 arrows on a bow. I know it's a fantasy world, and people do 7 impossible things before breakfast, chalk it up as an unreasonable complaint and move on.
Yup.. that's nutty.
Don't mean to throw fuel on the fire, but the best Archers have 9th level spells in addition to being damage hoses.
You can get pretty obscene with an Arcane Archer style character in terms of damage, while gaining most of the versatility of a wizard.
It should be noted that melee-meat-shields can do the same, but lose so much more in the transaction than an Archer does.
Archers are disgusting because they get to full attack pretty much at will. So with many shot, rapid fire and deadly aim that gets pretty friggin' gross pretty quick.
Two-handers also do ridiculous amounts of damage, especially when they can get up close enough to get a full attack. The Two-hander spec fighter in the APG is disgusting, as is furious focus which pretty much assures that a fighter can power attack all day long.
In a fight it's just about the way you want to play, i always got pissed when our fighter decided to be an archer as now the character with the most hps is in the back of the party while everyone else is getting punched in the face by giants or whatever.
The problem with Wind Wall is that you're getting to the point of reactive DMing, where you are designing encounters specifically to nerf the people playing. Also, if the Archer catches on, they're just gonna machine-gun casters (since archers also usually have really nice initiative mods) so that Wind Wall won't get a chance.
Then all of the sudden as a DM you'll be starting to make encounters where casters start behind walls or something, then just cast Wind Wall from out of a closet somewhere....and pretty soon you're just specifically targeting a player who has built a solid character. Do all casters in the world know that the PC with the bow is a damage-hose and that their first move should always be one of their low level spells?
Bah humbug to that!
Totally legal, and it's pretty crazy powerful when you do it.
I have a house rule against it, but it's 100% legal by the book.
TOTALLY NOT Legal!! Both feats need a FULL-ATTACK ACTION, so you would need 2 full-attack actions in 1 round to use both
|
|
TOTALLY NOT Legal!! Both feats need a FULL-ATTACK ACTION, so you would need 2 full-attack actions in 1 round to use bothTotally legal, and it's pretty crazy powerful when you do it.
I have a house rule against it, but it's 100% legal by the book.
Manyshot:
"When making a full-attack action with a bow..."Rapdishot:
"When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon..."
They are used when making a full attack action, they don't replace or supercede a full attack or contradict each other in any way.
TOTALLY NOT Legal!! Both feats need a FULL-ATTACK ACTION, so you would need 2 full-attack actions in 1 round to use bothTotally legal, and it's pretty crazy powerful when you do it.
I have a house rule against it, but it's 100% legal by the book.
Um, no. Both feats require that you be making a full attack action. Since you will be making a full attack action to get all your shots, you can use both feats. If you have to move more than 5 ft you can neither manyshot nor rapid shot.
TOTALLY NOT Legal!! Both feats need a FULL-ATTACK ACTION, so you would need 2 full-attack actions in 1 round to use bothTotally legal, and it's pretty crazy powerful when you do it.
I have a house rule against it, but it's 100% legal by the book.
Welcome to the wonderful world of being wrong -- enjoy.
Both feats are performed as part of a full-attack action. By themselves they do not take an action, instead augmenting an action you are already taking.
Since they are part of an action but don't require an action in and of themselves they can be performed any time you take the needed action -- and nothing in either of the feats suggests you can't use one feat with the other as such you can use both at the same time as parts of the same full round action.
Also it's not so great as people suggest -- all arrows are subject to DR and the like individually and with manyshot you lose out on many types of damage.
However it is still a very nice combo -- that does work together.
|
I'm playing an archer fighter myself, so I've analyzed pretty much every every feat related to ranged weapons, and as other posters above have noted, it's a perfectly LEGAL combination. You couldn't combine them with 'Focused Shot', for example, or any other feats that function as standard or full-attack actions.
Archers can be quite deadly in PF RPG; Deadly Shot, Manyshot, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot... you can *easily* rack up +12 (or more) on damage rolls by 6th level. Not to mention that a 6th level fighter can fire *four* arrows per round! It's madness.. but totally legal as per RAW.
|
|
Why is it that there's so much consternation over a fighter build that doesn't suck?
Why do you think a front line sword wielding fighter sucks? From what I've seen they do fine, no one (other than an archer) can keep up with them on damage output and they have the best armor choices. The only way they 'suck' is relative to archers.
If they do 'suck', why should archers be the the clear choice? Shouldn't there be a set of reasonably equal choices?
Do all casters in the world know that the PC with the bow is a damage-hose and that their first move should always be one of their low level spells?
PBS + Rapid Fire + Manyshot aren´t even choices, but are THE build for ANY Archer. Anybody who has seen Archers in action will know they can pump out the damage like this, so if they know they are facing a veteran Archer they will know what to expect (and 1st level Archers without ALL those Feasts still have the same dynamic, by lieu of continual Full Attacking, and thus still present the equivalent threat). Playing high INT, combat experienced NPCs with the knowledge of how 100% of Archers fight isn´t ´reactive GMing´ (punishing players), it´s the only way that makes sense. Likewise, PCs should have similar defenses agaisnt NPC Archers, though games focusing on Monster encounters miss out on this. Otherwise, one is pretending that the PCs are the only ones in the world who know how to be competent combatants, and the entire world of NPCs is continually surprised at their innovation. There just isn´t anything innovative about Archers Full Attacking, every body should expect it when they see a guy with a bow. (obviously, that`s an angle PCs could exploit, esp. with some illusion magic)
As to NPC Casters´ first action, who knows, there may be other priorities which they will take when there are in fact higher priorities than Wind Wall or Protection from Arrows (when facing Archer opponents). Besides Prot/Arrows and Wind Wall, there´s plenty of other spells that are effective agasint archers: just putting a Fog Cloud around the Archer (and then moving, ideally) is going to halve his # of hits if he chooses squares to shoot correctly, and if he is forced to move more than 5´ to get out of the cloud to get a clear view, no more Full Attack.
-----------------------------
Banning Multishot of course frees up that Feat for something else, which can be quite useful. I think I like that, rather than having every Archer pushed into effectively the same specialized build, they are encouraged to branch out in other ways.
Why is it that there's so much consternation over a fighter build that doesn't suck?Why do you think a front line sword wielding fighter sucks? From what I've seen they do fine, no one (other than an archer) can keep up with them on damage output and they have the best armor choices. The only way they 'suck' is relative to archers.
If they do 'suck', why should archers be the the clear choice? Shouldn't there be a set of reasonably equal choices?
I think he was referring to a ranged fighter build, based on context. Not a front line fighter sword wielder. In other words, I think he meant that ranged fighter builds usually suck.
The two most deadly enemies I ever put my group up against were two archers.
Two centaur archers, pre-APG. +5 strength bows, many shot, rapid shot, +1 Corrosive and +1 Frost bows. They were level 12 fighters. They were pumping out about 60 pts of damage per round. They'd just run away when people got close and then single attack, then full attack, run single attack, full attack, run single, etc.
They finally took them down to less than 10 hps using ranged attacks as well (spells and such) and then the centaur's ran away.
|
|
They are legel together I've slayed with them but one thing we took into account was the stacking -2 penalty. With rapid shot , many shot, and deadly aim I shoot at a total of -6. I still kill what i shoot at so the trade off is werth it.
Unless I've missed something there is no attack penalty with Manyshot.
The ability to Full Attack with Bows while riding a moving Mount is also a serious factor...
|
|
They are legel together I've slayed with them but one thing we took into account was the stacking -2 penalty. With rapid shot , many shot, and deadly aim I shoot at a total of -6. I still kill what i shoot at so the trade off is werth it.
There is no downside to manyshot... it's just a free extra arrow.
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: 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.
They are legel together I've slayed with them but one thing we took into account was the stacking -2 penalty. With rapid shot , many shot, and deadly aim I shoot at a total of -6. I still kill what i shoot at so the trade off is werth it.Unless I've missed something there is no attack penalty with Manyshot.
IF used w/ Rapidshot the -2 is still there, the other "-4" ((-4)+(-2)=-6) is from a BAB of +12 w/ a Deadly Aim Penalty of -4.
Why is it that there's so much consternation over a fighter build that doesn't suck?
Because people don't like RUTEBEGAS ON FIRE things out of place with the way they perceive the world.
|
|
wlof hunter
They are legel together I've slayed with them but one thing we took into account was the stacking -2 penalty. With rapid shot , many shot, and deadly aim I shoot at a total of -6. I still kill what i shoot at so the trade off is werth it.
kortz wrote
Unless I've missed something there is no attack penalty with Manyshot.
Yes the extra negitiv come from deadly aim and a high attak.
|
|
I think he was referring to a ranged fighter build, based on context. Not a front line fighter sword wielder. In other words, I think he meant that ranged fighter builds usually suck.
Ah, I missed that, sometimes my reading comprehension falls short of what it should be. If you pull Manyshot the bow is still the best ranged choice.
I'm playing an archer fighter myself, so I've analyzed pretty much every every feat related to ranged weapons, and as other posters above have noted, it's a perfectly LEGAL combination. You couldn't combine them with 'Focused Shot', for example, or any other feats that function as standard or full-attack actions.
Archers can be quite deadly in PF RPG; Deadly Shot, Manyshot, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot... you can *easily* rack up +12 (or more) on damage rolls by 6th level. Not to mention that a 6th level fighter can fire *four* arrows per round! It's madness.. but totally legal as per RAW.
Technically it's 5 arrows when that arcane caster casts haste on you. :) By 6th level a party should have access to haste, unless ur reling on a bard, then it's 7th.
Technically it's 5 arrows when that arcane caster casts haste on you. :) By 6th level a party should have access to haste, unless ur reling on a bard, then it's 7th.
Or you could be a Fighter 1/Wizard 5 and cast it yourself : ) You won't be as good as a Fighter 6 Archer of course, but third level spells are nice!
Protection From Arrows, as has been mentioned a couple times now, does nothing against archers. Honestly it's a second level spell, meaning you have it at third. Chances are you have a +1 bow by then, or at least very soon after. This negates Pro from Arrows.
As for the reactive DMing thing: Playing casters with high Int is the way it should be done. I was just saying that if you are going out of your way to create situations that nerf a character (using DM planning and not what NPCs in game would know or be able to realistically do) then yer doing a disservice to the game.
Someone said that they always have someone with Wind Wall now when they build encounters. I was just extrapolating that type of idea and saying that if you are basically going "wait that's strong, every big encounter from now on I'm going to find a way to negate you" that's not real nice DMing. If every single BBEG has a caster lackey who is hiding in a closet and casting Wind Wall at the start of every combat....then boo. If you're giving the characters perception checks and whatnot and allowing them to figure it out and negate it with good play, then that's great DMing and not what I'm complaining about.
Protection From Arrows, as has been mentioned a couple times now, does nothing against archers. Honestly it's a second level spell, meaning you have it at third. Chances are you have a +1 bow by then, or at least very soon after. This negates Pro from Arrows.
Not to nitpick, but a +1 bow won't negate Prot from Arrows. +1 Arrows will, the + on a bow doesn't make arrows count as magical. If a +1 bow made arrows magical then the Arcane Archer class would be pointless (pun intended).
Protection From Arrows, as has been mentioned a couple times now, does nothing against archers. Honestly it's a second level spell, meaning you have it at third. Chances are you have a +1 bow by then, or at least very soon after. This negates Pro from Arrows.
Not to nitpick, but a +1 bow won't negate Prot from Arrows. +1 Arrows will, the + on a bow doesn't make arrows count as magical. If a +1 bow made arrows magical then the Arcane Archer class would be pointless (pun intended).
The bow confers all magical affects on the ammunition, just like any other ranged weapon. If it didn't, a bow would never be able to bypass DR for anything. Read the chapter on magic ranged weapons in the core book.
EDIT:
Actually, here you are, I looked it up for you.
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
Ninja'd. What MDT said.
Protection From Arrows, as has been mentioned a couple times now, does nothing against archers. Honestly it's a second level spell, meaning you have it at third. Chances are you have a +1 bow by then, or at least very soon after. This negates Pro from Arrows.
Not to nitpick, but a +1 bow won't negate Prot from Arrows. +1 Arrows will, the + on a bow doesn't make arrows count as magical. If a +1 bow made arrows magical then the Arcane Archer class would be pointless (pun intended).
The bow confers all magical affects on the ammunition, just like any other ranged weapon. If it didn't, a bow would never be able to bypass DR for anything. Read the chapter on magic ranged weapons in the core book.
EDIT:
Actually, here you are, I looked it up for you.
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
OK, I see your point here and I concede that the +1 from the bow will allow it to overcome DR. However, that still doesn't make the arrow magical (thankfully), it just makes it be treated as a magic weapon for DR purposes.
OK, I see your point here and I concede that the +1 from the bow will allow it to overcome DR. However, that still doesn't make the arrow magical (thankfully), it just makes it be treated as a magic weapon for DR purposes.
Yep, the only time it would make a difference is if there's something requiring the weapon to be inherently magical other than DR. I'm not aware of anything requiring it, but it's possible.
Basically, a +2 flaming long bow that fires an arrow transfers the +2 flaming property to the arrow, making it a +2 flaming arrow (the arrow get's the damage bonus from the bow's enhancement bonus). If the arrow were a +3 corrosive arrow, then the arrow would hit the target as a +3 flaming corrosive arrow (the enhancement bonuses don't stack, but special abilities do, if they are different types).