Have the new feats eliminated the need for a switch hitter? I was playing around with ranger builds for an upcoming game and I noticed that the switch hitter just seemed altogether weaker than the Archer version. Yes, the switch hitter can do both melee and ranged, but they need 2 magic weapons do do (expensive), and divide their feats between the two, while with point blank master and snap shot, you can effectively have a melee weapon with a bow.
All in all, why switch hit? Is there some tactical advantage it has over ranged? I can see how the ability to full attack at range puts it up over a pure melee build, but why not go archer?
Switch-hitting requires less feats so it still has value in a lower level game, but if I were playing to a higher level and was good at staying out of trouble I would stick with the bow.
Even when switching hitting I never tried to keep my melee weapon on par with my bow. I did try to make it able to bypass DR/magic though.
The Snap Shot feat is game-breaking rubbish in my opinion. It makes for instance crossbows extremely poor by comparison;
Attacks of Opportunity
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow Yes
Load a heavy or repeating crossbow Yes
.... and allows full attacks without an issue. How the hell you draw, nock, aim and shoot whilst maintaining full defences is beyond me. The Feat is broken.
It should AT LEAST require a concentration check like spellcasting does - the act of shooting in melee is no less demanding in my opinion.
Personally if I came across an NPC doing this I would attack their bow as bows break easily. The fact they can ALSO get attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon in melee is beyond a joke.
It makes Weapon Finesse utterly pointless considering bow damage.
A very badly thought out feat.
It should not allow attacks of opportunity and should require a concentration check.
Fighting in melee with a ranged weapon should not be a preferential arrangement to using a melee weapon for a high Dex character.
|
Switch hitting depends on the game and how a DM runs combats. In the last game I played my switch hitter did not work at all. I felt I had wasted feats. The last game I ran I had a switch hitter and he was super effective. The game was mostly outdoors and they often spotted enemies at long ranges (sneaky group vs not so sneaky enemy) so he could shoot for a couple rounds before anyone got in his face.
In general I think just taking power attack is all you need to really switch hit. If you get caught where you need to pull out your weapon then power attack is all you need. You should have a great STR in any case.
Switch hitting is not better at either thing, but aimed to give you a passable level of effectiveness at either skill set. It's all about versatility. Also, archery is downright broken, so it's nice to have a non archery fallback if encounters are becoming too easy.
Archery is harder at low levels. Archery is completely negated by one spell fairly early in the game (windwall). Archery is ammo dependent should your DM choose to really nitpick.
I thought that all a switch-hitter needs, ranged- wise, is a decent Dex, which any Ranger should have anyways, and Rapid Shot as combat-style feat, the rest goes to melee, or not ?
Because archery although powerful is kinda boring.
Also archery requires at least 6 levels (depends on class) to start rocking, so at lower levels melee helps you.
Also this spell exists.
I find that to many people seem to try to keep the Archery and Melee equal which creates the not as good at anything effect. The switch hitter should be one with a splash of the other. If you want to primarily Melee rapid shot and deadly aim should be enough...maybe improved precise later on. You shouldnt need much else, your only firing when melee isnt an option. The same going the other way, if you want to use the bow more, power attack and cleave should do it. If you split half and half you will get half the results.
Switch hitting is useful for several situations:
1. Low feats -- Switch hitting ideally requires 3 feats -- power attack, deadly aim and quick draw. You can get away with just power attack and deadly aim which if you are playing a paladin leaves you plenty of feats for other sorts of abilities (perhaps you want ultimate mercy).
2. Low level -- You can be a melee god (especially at low level) but if you can't reach your opponent you are useless. Having a ranged weapon and deadly aim can help you give your enemy incentive to close for you.
3. Grappling -- having a light melee weapon and the ability to deal some damage with it can help in a grapple.
4. Weather conditions and lighting -- kind of the opposite of number 2, sometimes the weather, lighting, or even tactical considerations don't allow for ranged combat. If you aren't a fighter, ranger, or another class that grants point blank mastery you could be looking at a lot of AoO over a combat if things get close to you.
The Snap Shot feat is game-breaking rubbish in my opinion.
Pretty much. Between that and Clustered Shots, another wonderfully overpowered feat, there's very little reason to be anything else.
|
Pretty much. Between that and Clustered Shots, another wonderfully overpowered feat, there's very little reason to be anything else.The Snap Shot feat is game-breaking rubbish in my opinion.
Maybe you should try, oh, I don't know, Ranged Threat as a feat?
Snap Shot is a fine feat, for what it is. A single arrow is not likely to be game-breaking.
Clustered Shots, IMO, is a vastly overrated feat. For the well-prepared archer it has only one use. And that is to deal with DR/-- or hardness.
Overall, I think you are running scared where no man pursueth.
Deadly Aim is not as good a feat as Power Attack
Point-Blank Master is more of a feat tax than a melee weapon
Overall, you get more criticals with many melee weapons, even with Improved Critical (Longbow)
Yes, archers/ranged characters can get a few more full attacks off than a melee character, but they have definite trade-offs.
They are much less likely to wind up in a good position to be able to interdict/interfere with a spellcaster.
Snap Shot, even Improved Snap Shot, is not terribly likely to actually do anything, since the average archer is going to be staying farther away than his threat range....
|
|
Deadly Aim is not as good a feat as Power Attack
It's a much better feat than Power Attack, both in terms of opportunity to use it and in terms of percentage upgrade of the damage dished out. I.e., 1d8+6 vs 1d8+2 is a 60% increase in output at BAB4 with arrows, and you're much more likely to have a ranged attack at your disposal.
Archers are a spellcaster's worst enemy, since no matter where they go, the archer can still full attack them.
Criticals are not the way to get great damage. The way to do that is to ensure almost always taking full attacks, and bonuses to damage.
If you go for the snap shot line, you are going to be up front with the rest. If you have Improved Snap Shot and someone charges at you, or even just moves through your at least 15' range, you'll get one AoO. If someone casts a spell, you get an AoO. If someone drinks a potion, you get an AoO. Since you are Dex based, you sure as hell have Combat Reflexes.
No, these feats are huge power creep. It's not even power creep. It's more like power leap. Ranged weapons should not be able to threaten.
Pretty much. Between that and Clustered Shots, another wonderfully overpowered feat, there's very little reason to be anything else.The Snap Shot feat is game-breaking rubbish in my opinion.
Breaking news - some unbalanced feats discovered in Ultimate Combat! Details at 11!
Next up - sky blue, ocean wet!
IMO, ever since APG came out with Point Blank Master there's been no need to switch hit if a Fighter, Ranger, or Zen Archer Monk (the only ones who can get PBM). Why dilute your funds and feats on two weapons and fighting styles? It's just a waste.
No idea why anyone thinks Snap Shot is overpowered. Threatening adjacent for the cost of a feat is pitiful. Improved Snap Shot to threaten 15 ft is decent, though someone with a reach weapon and enlarge person (which won't help your reach) is still getting 20 ft reach w/o any feats spent. Ho hum. Also, even w/ a 15 ft reach, as an archer you're better off FAR away from enemies, dishing out damage from safety > getting hurt in exchange for some AoOs.
Only thing I hate about the Snap Shot line is it basically stole a Zen Archer class feature, gave it to the Fighter earlier, and let him do it better than the Zen Archer (Imp. Snap Shot; and even if a DM let a Zen Archer 9 count as having all the feats for Imp. Snap Shot, he still has to wait longer to pick it up and is at a disadvantage making the AoOs due to medium BAB). That seriously pissed me off.
|
|
IMO, ever since APG came out with Point Blank Master there's been no need to switch hit if a Fighter, Ranger, or Zen Archer Monk (the only ones who can get PBM). Why dilute your funds and feats on two weapons and fighting styles? It's just a waste.
Until you can't fight with a bow -- they you're useless unless you're prepared for it.
No strength x1.5 to crossbows or bows.
That, plus powerattack x3. Even if you have dex as the highest stats (melee moslty recreational) you can get good damage via agile elven curveblade and power attack.
That said the main reason for me would be wind wall (which you can go around) and fickle wind (which screw you badly).
Grappled or swallowed = no two-handed weapon use.
Have a plan.
Spiked gauntlet.
Spiked gauntlet.Grappled or swallowed = no two-handed weapon use.
Have a plan.
That's generally my archers' plan, Until later on when the plan becomes, "Ring of Freedom of Movement."
Besides, if you're not switch hitting you shouldn't be on the front lines, so going after you means the monster is not only plowing through/ignoring the melee guy who does more damage, but also the spellcasters.