Design Manager
|
What is the everything that makes you think they should be good at archery. Only thing is proficiencies that get. But mean they class doesn't even get Gravity Bow on their list.Archery works off adding bonus damage to each of your many attacks.
Inquisitors aren't actually that great of archers. Despite everything trying to tell you they are meant to be archers, they don't do it that well: they have no reliable bonus damage beyond Bane and Destruction, which doesn't make up for medium BAB, and archery is also feat intense, but they have no bonus feats.
Rangers work because they get lots of bonus feats with no requirements, plus a OK source of extra damage in Favored Enemy.
Paladins work because they add their Paladin level to damage (which great on its own), and can cast Litany of Righteousness to DOUBLE their damage.
They don't need it. Adding Smite to their arrows and then doubling up with something like Litany of Righteousness blows Gravity Bow out of the water. You're talking about at 20th the Paladin adding 20-40 (or more depending on the enemy!) to each arrow as opposed to the Ranger adding an extra 2.5 - 12.5 (Gravity Bow + Favored Enemy).
But the Barbar gets pounce at level 10 if he want to. Then it is charge full attack charge full attack.What makes the ranged good is that they're the only kind of fighters that get to take full attacks regularly. While on paper a two hander with a high strength looks good compared to the archer, when you actually play it that two hander is running all over Densas green earth trying to find things to kill, and losing attacks in the process.Unless you're a Barbarian.
In which case, let the good times roll.
even the barbarian is move kill move kill move kill. The archer just stands there kill kill kill kill.
If the bad guys are spread out, the barbarian can still only kill 1 per turn, no matter how much damage he does.
The Archer doesn't care.
With their arrows. Badoom Chhh!
If the bad guys are spread out, the barbarian can still only kill 1 per turn, no matter how much damage he does.The Archer doesn't care.
Unless all you're fighting are cannon fodder that can be killed in less than one full attack, it doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I truly enjoyed watching that....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if it makes anyone feel better, anyone can spend 75k for a quick and dirty way to be as good as a lot of archers most of the time.
A Ring of Telekinesis lets you make 9 attacks per round by tossing weapons (which do standard damage). If you're a full BAB class, you should have a really good chance to hit. You've got a range of 90 feet, which is not that shabby. Well, a range of 90 feet from the objects, the actual range of the spell is 760 ft, you just can't launch anything more than 90ft from its current location.
Actually, it would probably be a bit more than just 75k, given you'd want to get the 9 weapons.
Throwing greatswords would get you 18d6, with no bonuses at all and subject to DR. I'm pretty sure the static damage bonuses from most archers well exceeds that.
|
Design Manager
|
Throwing greatswords would get you 18d6, with no bonuses at all and subject to DR. I'm pretty sure the static damage bonuses from most archers well exceeds that.Well, if it makes anyone feel better, anyone can spend 75k for a quick and dirty way to be as good as a lot of archers most of the time.
A Ring of Telekinesis lets you make 9 attacks per round by tossing weapons (which do standard damage). If you're a full BAB class, you should have a really good chance to hit. You've got a range of 90 feet, which is not that shabby. Well, a range of 90 feet from the objects, the actual range of the spell is 760 ft, you just can't launch anything more than 90ft from its current location.
Actually, it would probably be a bit more than just 75k, given you'd want to get the 9 weapons.
Considering you're looking at about 31.5 average damage all together with the ring, a lot of archers are going to cover that in their first 2 attacks and still have more to go around
The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)
Where are you keeping these Gargantuan Chakrams lol?
Throwing greatswords would get you 18d6, with no bonuses at all and subject to DR. I'm pretty sure the static damage bonuses from most archers well exceeds that.Well, if it makes anyone feel better, anyone can spend 75k for a quick and dirty way to be as good as a lot of archers most of the time.
A Ring of Telekinesis lets you make 9 attacks per round by tossing weapons (which do standard damage). If you're a full BAB class, you should have a really good chance to hit. You've got a range of 90 feet, which is not that shabby. Well, a range of 90 feet from the objects, the actual range of the spell is 760 ft, you just can't launch anything more than 90ft from its current location.
Actually, it would probably be a bit more than just 75k, given you'd want to get the 9 weapons.
Medium-Sized Greatswords, sure. If you use Large-sized Greatswords (16lbs), that's 27d6 (avg. 94.5 damage). If you use huge-sized bastard swords (24lbs, one less than the limit), then that's 27d8 (121.5 average damage). And Gargantuan Chakrams would deal at least 36d6 (126), and possibly more than 4d6 each (hard to say).
But these are ATTACKS so anything that boosts attacks in general should boost the damage on these attacks. For instance a +2 morale bonus to damage should bump up the damage by 18. If the weapons are enchanted that would increase the damage as well (though granted this is very expensive if you aren't using spells to do it).
There is far more to it than that. Keep in mind, that unless you have a staff, magic items operate on the minimum ability score needed to cast the spell. Telekinesis is a 5th level spell and therefore, the minimum ability score is 19 or a +4 bonus. The attack roll for a Ring of Telekinesis is therefore +13 to hit. At the point you could reasonably afford a Ring of Telekinesis, I'd say approximately 15th level, the average AC of opponents is going to be about 30. Congratulations on needing a 17 or higher to hit.
You gain no strength bonus on damage, just base weapon damage. I'd hazard that generic "+2 to attack and damage rolls" would apply, but specific things like Weapon Training, or Weapon Focus, would not. Because you are wielding the ring, not the weapon.
So, say you really could carry around 9 huge bastard swords, each one would deal 3d8+x damage, and each hit is subject to DR. If you face a DR 10 opponent (quite possible at the level you could reasonably afford the ring), most of the damage will be negated, meaning you deal pitiful damage. This is all assuming you even hit the bastard.
Honestly, you're probably better off throwing a fireball instead.
|
So who makes the best archer?
For PFS I would rank them in this order;
1. Zen Archer
2. Ranger
3. Fighter
4. Paladin
5. Inquisitor
For a game capped at 12th level the Zen Archer is, in my opinion, the Gold standard. They have 3 good saves, class features & bonus feats that give you everything you need; meaning you can play a ZAM that doesn't have to be Human. You can actually spend all your regular feat slots on non-archery feats and still be better than almost all the other classes.
Ranger is second because he has 2 good saves, and like the ZAM, he gets early access to Improved Precise Shot. Major drawback is he doesn't have enough feats to get everything he needs/wants without being human and dedicating everything to Archery (no boon companion). In my opinion, for Society play the Ranger is better off being a switch hitter: you still rock at a Archery, but you can spend feats to diversify your talents.
Fighter is 3rd on account of all the feats. The big drawback is playing 11 of 12 levels eating a -4 penalty every time you get into a confined space and your melee buddies charge the baddies.
I rank Paladin 4th on account that she is pretty feat starved, but really all the other goodies she brings to the table make up for this. Defensively she is better than the Fighter and Ranger and possibly the Monk. The more I think about it the Paladin is probably better than the Fighter in most ways... But then I try and squeeze in all the Feats I want and I can't...
Inquisitors have a few things working against them... 3/4 BAB and no bonus feats that are Archery specific. The class brings a lot of other cool things to the table though, but the truth is, despite the Iconic, inquisitors are better at melee than archery.
This is all my opinion of course and while I've built each of these characters up to 12th level I have not had a chance to play them all, specifically the Paladin & Inquisitor... Which may explain why they rank lower on my list...
So here is a question for you all, where do Arcane Archers fall in all this?
The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)
Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
In a dynamic adventuring day the inquisitor, monk and inquisitor get far more out of their damage bonuses even if the paladins are higher. Though as a boss killer with their saves, DR pen and smite they ARE the boss killers!
Extremely helpful, yes. The good thing for Inquisitors is that their bane ability allows them to penetrate all DR as soon as they get a weapon with a +3 enhancement bonus.
The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
Because Van Helsing had one.The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
Not exactly the point of the debate, but nonetheless another sign that they are supposed to be capable ranged characters.
Not exactly the point of the debate, but nonetheless another sign that they are supposed to be capable ranged characters.Because Van Helsing had one.The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
Actually the thing is given pathfinder takes from a lot of outside inspiration that probably IS the reason.
Actually the thing is given pathfinder takes from a lot of outside inspiration that probably IS the reason.Not exactly the point of the debate, but nonetheless another sign that they are supposed to be capable ranged characters.Because Van Helsing had one.The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
And it makes Inquisitor just a bit more suited for ranged combat than melee. It takes the class a bit to get there, but when it does (around level 9), it is pretty devastating. Only thing it really misses are some archery spells (which it doesn't really need with its already high damage output) and earlier access to Improved Precise Shot.
And it makes Inquisitor just a bit more suited for ranged combat than melee. It takes the class a bit to get there, but when it does (around level 9), it is pretty devastating. Only thing it really misses are some archery spells (which it doesn't really need with its already high damage output) and earlier access to Improved Precise Shot.Actually the thing is given pathfinder takes from a lot of outside inspiration that probably IS the reason.Not exactly the point of the debate, but nonetheless another sign that they are supposed to be capable ranged characters.Because Van Helsing had one.The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
I think the Inquisitor was 'intended' to be a ranged character, it just didn't pan out due to lack of ranged support for the inquisitor. If she had some good archery spells, and feat support things would be better.
In terms of best archer it is really a trade off
Defensively Zen Archers are best
Offensively Zen Archers are best until 11th level, except under certain circumstances (namely smite, and rangers against favored foes), when everyone gets improved precise shot.
That's interesting. I've been playing my fighter archer with rangers, paladins, inquisitors, and even clerics wielding bows. My fighter was always the most consistent damage dealer - even on low levels. Granted, I haven't played with the Zen Archer yet.
For comparison, at level 8 his attack routine is +21/+21/+16 (d8+12/x3). Manyshot and Point Blank Shot bump that up a bit. Also, he doesn't have Deadly Aim yet - that's going to make a difference.
Unless all you're fighting are cannon fodder that can be killed in less than one full attack, it doesn't matter.
If the bad guys are spread out, the barbarian can still only kill 1 per turn, no matter how much damage he does.The Archer doesn't care.
Even if it takes more than one full attack, the archer still gains action economy. For example, let's say it takes 1.5 full attacks to kill an opponent. The Barbarian charges in, does his full round of attacks, then next turn does half and his opponent is dead. He can't do any more attacks.
THe archer, meanwhile, does his first full attack, then the following turn does a half a full attack and kills his opponent. He can still use the other half a fullattack to damage the next opponent.
Result: Barbarian kills an opponent every other turn, archer kills 2 every 3 turns.
OC there is the Barb's massive damage to contend with, but you get the point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IME when there's a Barbarian slaughtering people mercilessly in 1v1 combat, the enemies try to make sure it's no longer 1v1 combat, but maybe that's just me.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IME when there's a Barbarian slaughtering people mercilessly in 1v1 combat, the enemies try to make sure it's no longer 1v1 combat, but maybe that's just me.
It's one of those things where each guy goes "Don't worry, I've got this" and challenges the Barbarian to one on one combat. For some reason Barbarians just bring that out in people......
I don't know when I was playing my Barbarian enemies seemed to think I had a preset kill limit and just kept throwing themselves at me. I always full attacked because the enemies always came to me.
Greater/Weapon Focus, Gloves of Dueling.
Greater/Weapon Focus, Gloves of Dueling.
Ditto. Also, Str is only 14, and the bow is +2.
I think the Inquisitor was 'intended' to be a ranged character, it just didn't pan out due to lack of ranged support for the inquisitor. If she had some good archery spells, and feat support things would be better.The general purpose clerical self buffs are better than the ranger's archery buffs.
Gravity Bow is a 3.5 damage boost (less on a small PC). Whoop de do. By the 2:1 deadly aim standard Divine Favor is 3 and the inquisitor has it 4 character levels before the ranger gets gravity bow. Two levels after that divine favor doubles in magnitude, and then it goes up again at level 9.
If the inquisitor had gravity bow she wouldn't bother to learn it when she could learn a more versatile spell that's stronger in the long run. It's not like a second buff is going to be worth her combat actions when she could be full attacking.
Divine Favor is +1 per 3 levels (caps at +3) and lasts for 1 minute (no scaling duration) before expiring. Gravity Bow increases the damage die by 1 step and lasts for 1 minute per caster level. Generally speaking, Divine Favor is the more powerful short-term buff, but Gravity Bow is better for longer engagements (like dungeon crawls).
But ranged support comes in more than just spells, it's also feats and class features. Things like simply having normal bonus feats, instead of just teamwork feats would have helped. Or bonuses that specifically apply to archery.
The inquisitor is specifically proficient with crossbows and bows, but has little real support when it comes to actually using them. Granted, yes, the Inquisitor can rock the bow/crossbow just about as well as anyone, but it requires sinking basically every feat he has into using it.
At +2 Str, +2 bow, you've got +2 str +2 bow +4 weapon training +2 weapon spec for 1d8+10, which is why I was asking.
+1 Point Blank Shot, probably, and something else.
What else are feats for?
But ranged support comes in more than just spells, it's also feats and class features. Things like simply having normal bonus feats, instead of just teamwork feats would have helped. Or bonuses that specifically apply to archery.The inquisitor is specifically proficient with crossbows and bows, but has little real support when it comes to actually using them. Granted, yes, the Inquisitor can rock the bow/crossbow just about as well as anyone, but it requires sinking basically every feat he has into using it.
Several things.
Not exactly the point of the debate, but nonetheless another sign that they are supposed to be capable ranged characters.Because Van Helsing had one.The reason that Inquisitors are proficient in simple melee weapons but martial ranged weapons isn't because they're specifically supposed to be archers (although they're fine at that), but because while simple melee weapons are just lower-damage versions of martial melee weapons, simple ranged weapons are borderline nonfunctional versions of martial ranged weapons. That's a problem, considering how feat-heavy ranged combat is already. If you had to blow another feat just to get a non-terribad ranged weapon, the Inquisitor would basically be just a melee class (unless you worship Erastil specifically.) If you want to make non-Erastilian Inquisitors a real thing, you pretty much have to give them Martial ranged. (The reverse isn't true; not only are there a lot of deities that give reasonable or good melee weapons, but melee combat is less feat-intensive, so even if you want to be a Desnan melee Inquisitor or something, you can afford the feat.)Sooo, why again do they have the Repeating Crossbow on their proficiency list, then? ^^
I agree that they're supposed to be capable ranged characters. They're supposed to be capable at either, and they are. (Not incredible, but capable.) Nothing I said was intended to imply in any way that inquisitors are supposed to be only one or only the other. The repeating crossbow is just a cute trinket text choice for thematics.
To be good with a bow, an inquisitor does in fact have to put pretty much every feat they have into it. The game rewards the inquisitor for doing that through the fact that bows reliably make a ton of attacks, which is a good combination with having a hefty damage bonus to your attacks, which inquisitors do.
As a DM I plan encounters to challenge a party with varying strengths and weaknesses being highlighted across a number of encounters.
Regarding archers:
1. As previously said, terrain and cover hurt them, as can wind and weather.
2. Close range fighting hurts them (and YES I would sunder a p.c. archer's magic bow if I felt the bad guys would do that) and most dungeon fights are close range.
3. They are a priority target for intelligent enemies. Mages especially - dominate the pc archer the BBG mage is safer and the other pcs now have to deal with all that threat and damage coming at them, especially the pc mage.
4. Their visual senses often limit them more than the effective range of the weapon in a dungeon setting. So who has the light and where are they in relation to the Archer?
5. They rely on ammunition, normally not an issue but in an extended adventure it can become one, especially if a player and their equipment start failing saves against things like fireball.
6. They rely on equipment and the DM is the one who ultimately decides what is available, so you may find that Strength Bonus is NOT reflected in your ranged damage for a while...So generally speaking, it's rare a pc archer gets too may encounters where they stand still and pour damage onto the opposition with impunity (it does occasionally happen but not as often as you may think).
In terms of play I would rather play an archer type with good saves precisely for reason 3 above, so Paladin or Zen Archer Monk. One interesting archetype however is the Weapon Master Fighter - early weapon training, nice critical abilities, CMD boost and Mirror move. Way better than the archer in my opinion.
Well i hope your making EVERYONE ELSE also have to suffer from failing thair saves, not giving them equipment that want/could actually use, having THEIR equipment sundered, and start keeping track of material components for the casters, ect.....
Yes actually I do, but...Well i hope your making EVERYONE ELSE also have to suffer from failing thair saves, not giving them equipment that want/could actually use, having THEIR equipment sundered, and start keeping track of material components for the casters, ect.....As a DM I plan encounters to challenge a party with varying strengths and weaknesses being highlighted across a number of encounters.
Regarding archers:
1. As previously said, terrain and cover hurt them, as can wind and weather.
2. Close range fighting hurts them (and YES I would sunder a p.c. archer's magic bow if I felt the bad guys would do that) and most dungeon fights are close range.
3. They are a priority target for intelligent enemies. Mages especially - dominate the pc archer the BBG mage is safer and the other pcs now have to deal with all that threat and damage coming at them, especially the pc mage.
4. Their visual senses often limit them more than the effective range of the weapon in a dungeon setting. So who has the light and where are they in relation to the Archer?
5. They rely on ammunition, normally not an issue but in an extended adventure it can become one, especially if a player and their equipment start failing saves against things like fireball.
6. They rely on equipment and the DM is the one who ultimately decides what is available, so you may find that Strength Bonus is NOT reflected in your ranged damage for a while...So generally speaking, it's rare a pc archer gets too may encounters where they stand still and pour damage onto the opposition with impunity (it does occasionally happen but not as often as you may think).
In terms of play I would rather play an archer type with good saves precisely for reason 3 above, so Paladin or Zen Archer Monk. One interesting archetype however is the Weapon Master Fighter - early weapon training, nice critical abilities, CMD boost and Mirror move. Way better than the archer in my opinion.
kk good. because i have seen GMs do that stuff to JUST THE ARCHER because they didn't like the archer doing his thing... which is kinda messed up...
At +2 Str, +2 bow, you've got +2 str +2 bow +4 weapon training +2 weapon spec for 1d8+10, which is why I was asking.
+2 Str, +2 bow, +2 weapon training, +2 gloves of dueling, +2 weapon spec, +2 arcane strike. Yep, he's an Aasimar.
Aasimars are pretty handy for darkvision, and being immune to dominate person, too. And Plumekiths get +2 Wis (in addition to +2 Dex), which is practically +1 to Will saves.
For a iquisitor archer: str bow+ weapon bonus + deadly aim + bracer + pointblank + judgment + bane + destruction domain + (spell buffs like named bullet and others)...do the math : )