I'm playing a fighter-archer with a level of Wizard. Around level 8-ish I'm expecting to start into arcane archer levels. I'm primarily an archer who occasionally casts the odd spell, not a spellcaster who occasionally fires the odd arrow.
I realize I'm making un-optimized choices right out the door. I've noticed a lot of min-maxers say go full-caster or go home, and the idea of taking vital strike is heresy in these forums. DON'T BURN ME INTERNETS! ;)
THAT SAID, I'm playing with a GM that has banned Clustered Shot and a host of other "offensively over-powered" material, in his words. Anything that's considered even remotely powerful on these forums will come under fervent suspicion and result in another banned option (I've proven talented at finding them in our game). We also won't be getting any "stat on a stick" gear like Dex+2, nor "munchkin" materials like darksteel or mithral etc (again, GM hates it). A lot of the default recommendations for an optimized character won't be accepted in our campaign. So I'm not here to ask for min-max help, just to get advice on whether I'll realistically get much use out of a specific feat combo.
Also, we're playing a highly customized campaign. For example, my human gets +1 AC, Ref, Will, & Fortitude instead of a bonus feat and skill points. I mention this just in case people are wondering about the missing feat. ;)
I chose a shortbow because I try to be mounted all the time. I have the mount spell, but sadly that takes a round of preparation at the start of combat to get going. I had a light combat-trained horse, but became separated from it during a (fairly unavoidable) story event, which sucks. I don't think I'll ever find it again. Other players have sustained comparable losses. I don't think I can ever depend on gear, pets, or other material possessions sticking around, ever... so I may not buy another horse.
I'm currently at Level 6:
Str: 14 (15 with wizard Transmutation boon)
Con: 11
Dex: 20
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 7
Initiative is +11 (5 dex mod + 2 from Reactionary trait + 4 from familiar), allowing me to act early in combat. I don't wear armor for fear of a spell failing, though maybe I should. My other trait prevents being flat-footed when I'm not aware in combat (Defensive Strategist).
Feats:
F1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
W1: Rapid Shot, transmutation spell school, green scorpion familiar
F2: Weapon Focus (shortbow)
F3:
F4: Weapon Specialization, Deadly Aim
F5:
I'll be picking up Many Shot and one other feat on my next level, and Arcane Archer on the level after that. To deal with the DR that seems to play a central role in this campaign, I have one of my few spell slots devoted to Abundant Ammunition so I can get the most use of the cold iron and alchemical silver arrows, among other custom campaign materials I find.
At level 8, my damage bonuses will be:
2 (weapon specialization) + 2 (composite bow 2) + 1 (point blank shot) + 1 (fighter weapon training) + 1 (arcane archer enhancement) + 6 (optional Deadly Aim).
So a +7 damage base, with the option of going up to +13 with Deadly Aim (at a -3 attack penalty).
With some spare feat slots coming up, I'm thinking of taking Vital Shot and Bullseye Shot. Maybe later I would even pick up the Improved and Greater Vital Shot, though the feat cost at that point is prohibitive. Stupid non-scaling feats.
Unfortunately, I'm using a shortbow because I was planning to be mounted all the time (longbows and horses do not mix gracefully). That reduces the potency of a vital shot. Also, part of the advantage of being an archer is that I can get off a full attack fairly often because I don't necessarily need to move to be in range. This further reduces the need for vital strike.
However, full attacks come with some pretty severe accuracy penalties with each additional shot. Sure at level 12 I'll be making 5 attacks thanks to rapid/manyshot, but with rapid shot's penalty and the reduced BAB per attack, the shots are made at a -2/-2/-2/-7/-12 penalty, which can be ineffective against a high-AC foe (correct me if I'm getting my numbers wrong). Employing the aim penalty of Deadly Aim here could be a bad idea (-5/-5/-5/-10/-15). Plus, if I'm not able to use Abundant Ammunition, that's spending a lot of (potentially valuable or limited) arrows to deal with DR (because of the absence of Clustered Shots).
Thus:
I'm assuming there will be non-rare times where it will be more valuable to make one heavy and accurate shot than many inaccurate ones. A shot at +4 attack and doing +1d6 damage may not be a bad idea in that case. Bullseye Shot also combines nicely with Seeker Arrow (though vital strike might not -- I'll have to check the text).
Assuming only 2 of my arrows in a full attack will hit on average, I'd be looking at 2x 1d6 + 7 damage (or 2x 1d6 + 13 with deadly aim). Instead I could simply vital strike for 2d6 + 7 or 2d6 + 13 damage with a lot more accuracy and DR-penetration.
Unfortunately, I'm not a T-Rex and I can't depend on Gravity Bow or other effects to make my weapon die more ominous. I have very few spells per day, and a low duration on each spell. And if I did find a clever way of boosting the damage die, I'm pretty sure I'd get nixed by the munchkin-hating GM. ;)
So here's my question:
1) Is Bullseye Shot worth taking in this case?
2) Is Vital Strike worth taking?
3) If so, are the other Vital feats worthwhile?
4) Am I completely misunderstanding the full-round attack rolls and expected AC of my targets?
Thanks all!
I believe the mathematical statistics were worked out that you'd potentially do more damage with a Full Attack and hope for a natural 20 for your iterative attack than the damage Vital Strike could give. However, in a proper game every bit of damage done now counts for more as you have team mates to count on.
In terms of enemies AC, it really depends whether or not your DM tries to buff them up. In my non-mathematically calculated subjective view, if you can't reasonably hit with your 2nd iterative attack (the -5 BAB one), Vital Strike is good, even better if you get Devastating Strike afterwards.
Bullseye Shot is a fun feat that could help your ranged touch attack spells as well, but if you are already feat starved it's hard to recommend.
Bullseye Shot is a fun feat that could help your ranged touch attack spells as well, but if you are already feat starved it's hard to recommend.
That's a very good point, I hadn't thought of my ranged touch spells. Since I have at least 1 spare feat slot, that makes it a very good option.
The next step is to start watching closely in combat and see how often I'm going to miss with my -5 on 2nd attack. That should give me a good idea of whether a feat or more are worth spending on the vital tree. I haven't been keeping good track of enemy AC, though it does seem to vary wildly in some cases. Sometimes we fight something with low defenses but obscene DR, for example; other times the enemy's AC seems overly high.
Thanks Chooky!
Don't forget that rapid shot is an option so you ofter better with that.
Actually I included Rapid Shot above. Did I miss something in my attack counts above?
To be more succinct:
Option 1: Full Attack
It's true that I'm currently able to make 2 attacks (BAB=5 for now), but once I have Manyshot at next level, I'll be making 4 attacks with a full-round action:
1 from Rapid Shot (+12 vs AC)
1 from Many Shot (second arrow as part of first attack)
2 from BAB=6 (+12 and +7 vs AC)
So I'll make 3 attack rolls at +12/+12/+7 vs AC, and hit with up to 4 arrows, assuming good rolls. Each hit will deal 1d6 + 6 damage.
If I reduce the attack roll with Deadly Aim, I get +9/+9/+4 vs AC and each hit deals 1d6 + 12 damage, but I don't expect to hit reliably with that many hit penalties.
Option 2: Single Attack
If I use Vital Strike and Bullseye Shot, I spend my move and standard actions to make one attack with a +4 bonus.
+18 vs AC; 2d6 + 6 damage
or
+15 vs AC; 2d6 + 12 damage (deadly aim)
So it's a matter of whether enemy AC is frequently high or low, and how often I need the extra damage for breaking past DR (which is common in this campaign).
I suspect getting an average of 2-3 hits in with the 2 attack rolls at full attack bonus (rapid shot + many shot) is more valuable than a single shot with +6 to hit and 2d6 weapon damage (vital strike + bullseye shot), but I'm not sure. Rapid attacks easily do more damage if they hit and they're not chopped down by DR, but that's two big IFs. ;)
Arcane archer in a few levels will boost the damage even more, adding an enhancement bonus and eventually +1d6 fire/lightning/ice damage. I suspect that tips the scales firmly toward rapid attacks...?
Just a note: You do not need a shortbow to use a bow while mounted. The text for Composite Longbow specifically states it can be used while mounted.
Longbow, Composite: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow.
For purposes of Weapon Proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow.
Regarding Manyshot, it is not a separate attack roll. It uses one attack roll for two arrows.
I hope your GM is nerfing his monsters since he is nerfing expected stat boosting items. I would get your bow up to +3 ASAP so it can bypass silver and cold iron.
I would also stock blunt arrows (Ultimate Equipment) and Adamantine blanch arrows.
Frankly, I have a bag of holding for all of my arrows, I reload my quiver as needed and carry hundreds of arrows of every variety in the bag of holding. This way you can have virtually unlimited Cold Iron arrows (I do not buy regular arrows anymore) and Blunt arrows. Keep the silver blanch and adamantine blanch arrows for special occasions.
Regarding being mounted, why are you trying to be mounted so much? Get Point Blank Master at level 4 (retrain a level 2 "throwaway" feat and get Weapon Focus longbow at level 3 instead) and it won't matter much if you are mounted or not.
Also, I noticed your feat progression was off. Here is a corrected progression including Point Blank Master (format: character level-class level).
Example:
1-F1: Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot
2-W1: Scribe Scroll (bonus)
3-F2: throwaway feat (such as Dodge), Rapid Shot
4-F3: No feats
5-F4: Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow), Point Blank Master (retrain throwaway feat such as Dodge)
6-F5: No feats
7-F6: Deadly Aim, Manyshot
Then proceed to Arcane Archer as desired.
Finally, to answer your question: Vital Strike can be made viable but it is a poor substitute for a full attack. Under no circumstances should you get Bullseye Shot. The vital strike attack is pretty much guaranteed to hit anyhow.
Example: At level 10 you have BAB10 + 5dex +2enhancement +2weapon training +1 Weapon Focus = +20.
The average AC of a CR 10 creature is 24. You need a 4+ to hit. The average AC of a CR 13 creature is 28, you will need an 8+ to hit.
Have your spellcasters cast buff spells on you and that will be remedied rather quickly (Cat's Grace, Heroism, Haste = +5).
Horses, even combat trained, are pretty cheap. Buying another one now and again shouldn't be munchkinish by any standards.
Vital Strike probably isn't worth a feat to you but it depends a bit on what the alternatives are. If Clustered Shots is off limits it's not clear what might be allowed. Bullseye Shot is similar.
Would Point Blank Master be something which is ruled out by your DM? I'd get it before Vital Strike if it was allowed. Improved Precise Shot is an obvious feat for when your BAB reaches that point - if allowed. The Snap Shot chain is not always useful, but I'd still get them before Vital Strike.
As you already alluded to, what works best is going to depend on the AC of the target. I made up a spreadsheet for comparing situations like that, comparing 'average damage/round' for various situations against various AC. Your option 2 only starts having more potential when the target's AC is > 28. Lower than that, the Full Attack will, on average, do more damage.
I'd seriously look back into getting that horse, and go mounted combat/trick riding/mounted skirmisher instead. Being able to be mobile while making full round attacks is going to have a more realistic benefit in most cases than raw 'stand there firing' impact.
|
I can't recommend Archery at all if you GM is banning ranged feats and considered a +2 dex belt to be munchkinism. Clustered shots is not OP, it simply allows archery to be relevant against DR.
Vital Strike is much weaker than a full attack, but if you were to use it to shoot for a big hit and fall back into cover to disallow a counter-attack, I'm sure your GM will ban it too.
Combined with the level of homebrew in this game, it's impossible to give any advice that will work with the house rules the GM has set up.
Rerednaw: I'm right there with you. I'd love to see the full list of house rules too -- it would sure reduce the number of surprises we have during play. The first time I decided to cast abundant ammunition on my quiver of special arrows, the GM announced "oh BTW, I looked at the special materials in Pathfinder and they're just ridiculous. Looks like just a bunch of stat boosts and excuses to munchkin." or something to that effect. He did this in combat, after I had already cast abundant ammo. He's lunged all kinds of surprises like that, and it's always our fault as players, you know for being munchkins. >.>
This GM is a D&D 3 and 3.5 veteran, and he's always trying to "correct" Pathfinder to work like D&D 3. He seems to think everything in Pathfinder is wildly overpowered and needs to be tamped down to an acceptable level. I don't know enough about how D&D 3 played to really respond to that... but we all signed up to play Pathfinder, not the unrecognizable and constantly morphing system we're left with. We've lost one player already to it, and I and one other player may be close behind.
CraziFuzzy: Cool, I'll look into modifying my build for Mounted Skirmisher. It's too bad I'll have to wait until at least level 9 and 14 to pick those up though. :(
avr: Yea, I considered Point Blank Master. I'm hesitant to take it, depends on what the GM thinks. He might be really incensed by the idea of an archer not provoking OAs to fire. I already know from earlier discussions that the snap shot chain is dangerous ground and not to be discussed.
Gauss: Yea, I know that about manyshot. Good point on +3 bonuses, I hadn't known about that. I wonder if my GM will accept it though... He's changed so much already.
Adamantine arrows are already banned. Cold iron and alchemical silver are allowed, most other useful materials are unlikely. I came up with a totally unique ammo system (house-ruled) that better fit what the GM was thinking would be appropriate for the campaign. It allows a lot of tricks (raining arrows filled with acid, etc) but it's still in testing. Not sure how it will pan out. If it ever proves fun and useful, that may be the end of it.
Sorry about my feat progression being off. As for being mounted all the time, my impression was that I could make full attacks while my mount moved for me. Looking at Mounted Skirmisher was the first clear indication that it doesn't work that way. Or maybe I got mixed up because early in the build I was planning on using Bullseye + Vital Strike while my mount moved for me (before switching to my current build plan). Bah, stupid brain.
And thank you for the text on composite longbow! I hadn't realized that. I may have to find some way to retrain my shortbow-specific feats (assuming the GM doesn't take issue with that too...? Or claim it's just a bug in the text...).
As for the GM adjusting monsters so we're not overwhelmed, that's what he says he's doing.
I don't think I can count on spellcaster allies to buff me. The few we have left in the party don't really focus down those lines. Our cleric already left the group out of disgust (and he was our only healer). He was planning on getting a variety of equipment to make his build viable, and the GM sprung the "no stat-on a stick and no mithral" rule on him after the fact. That basically hosed his mid- and long-term plans, and he was done. I'm all for playing a story-driven campaign with restrictions, but those should be clearly stated and agreed upon right out the door, not sprung on the players mid-action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. I would GM a Pathfinder game, except I'm already running a Mayhem RPG campaign and the cleric is running a game of Numenera. Last time I tried running a D&D campaign it was 4th edition, and this same GM did everything in his power as a player to munchkin the hell out of the system... so I don't know where he gets off making us out to be the bad guys. :(
And yea, 3.0 and 3.5 were not any better balanced than Pathfinder by any means. Rose-tinted glasses combined with what he calls the "gentlemen's agreement" to not abuse the system are probably why he remembers 3.0 being better.
One friend is seriously considering leaving the game, and I'm losing interest in it too. We may simply bow out together.
You can exchange a Fighter feat (which your Weapon Focus is) for a new fighter feat every four fighter levels. There is no cost and should be no problem because it is specifically a part of the fighter rules.
I would take Weapon Focus longbow at level 3 and then at fighter level 4 retrain your Weapon Focus shortbow to Point Blank Master.
Bonus Feats: At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
The trick is I cannot retrain out Weapon Focus without removing Weapon Specialization first (because it depends on weapon focus: shortbow). :(
I had a GM like this back in the 2E days. In the game it took me quite some time to figure out why he would nerf this but allow an equally excessive if not even better option. What he was trying to do was guide use into a character concept with out telling use to build that character concept as revealing that would lead to too many question and destroy the story. I ended up just following the carrot instead of running into the stick. The game began to take shape and by the end I understood why he was directing us away from doing things we'd normally do.
So looking at this it seems to me that you GM is luring you away from being able to bypass DR/adamantite. Cluster shot allows you to bypass DR after the first shot, admantine weapons allow you to bypass, as well increasing the damage out put well past the DR amount effectly bypasses it. Stat boosts are one way to boost damage output. Now the special materials might just be catch all. Not Admantite means no mitheral either. This obfuscates that you GM is planning a game where you need to quest for an Admantite weapon in order the kill the BBEG. If this the case don't expect find +5 weapons and if you do find a way to get +5 expect it be nerfed with call of munchinism. This what I'd call running into the stick. My advice is look for the carrots.
Of course is the GM is just being a jerk better to just find a new GM but most time this is not the case. It's not a good way to GM but they may honestly be trying here to have fun game.
The trick is I cannot retrain out Weapon Focus without removing Weapon Specialization first (because it depends on weapon focus: shortbow). :(
There are rules to retrain in the Ultimate Campaign book. Just take time and gold. It take 10 x Level x Days. To retrain a few in you case would take 10 days. So if you are level 5 that would 500 gp and 10 days with a trainer that has weapon focus and specialization in Comp Long Bow.
voska66: That's actually pretty close to my suspicion. There's a big disconnect between how the players want to play and how the GM wants them to play, and we're struggling to meet in the middle. He wants to be subtle and he hasn't defined things fully in advance, and that's trouble.
A lot of the time he doesn't have a clear idea of what's off limits until a player does it, and then they get in trouble for "munchkining" and cheating. From the GM's perspective that may well be the case: that player has sabotaged the game the GM wants to run. But from the player's perspective he's being slapped in the face for doing what he thought he was supposed to do. My ears are still burning from the day he announced mid-battle that special materials and ammo types (which he had personally recommended I try out with my arrows) wouldn't be allowed, and passive-aggressively tore me down in front of the group and then privately in e-mail for trying to use them. At least, it felt passive aggressive for him to accuse me of cheating and saying I made a big deal of such a minor thing.
If he's trying to guide us toward a more fun way to play, he's going about it all wrong. :( I like how KainPen put it -- you should be up-front and direct with your players on what's not allowed, in advance, and not treat them like scheming little cheaters when they trip over an unforeseen limit. Changes should be discussed on pleasant terms, working with your players instead of taking a hostile stance. Give the players a chance to adjust their characters if changes have to be made mid-campaign. And leading the players through subtle means like a carrot on a stick shouldn't end in beating the players with said stick. *grumble grumble*
I think one of the most valuable lessons I've learned from this whole experience is what not to do. I'm a big fan of limiting material to fit the campaign, match the story, to balance things, etc. I'm doing that in my Mayhem campaign. But I should be up-front with my players and treat them with respect -- even when they're powergaming, it's not a personal attack against me and I shouldn't attack them.
With luck I'll be a better and more fun GM and player after all this, whether I stick with the campaign or not.
As for retraining, I'll look into that. I'm wishing I had understood the composite bow rules better earlier, I could have avoided this. Derp. :)
Dot for later reading.
Dot for later reading.
?
What do you mean? DOT = Damage Over Time?
Dot for later reading.?
What do you mean? DOT = Damage Over Time?
On the Paizo messageboards, whenever you post on a thread that thread gets a little dot next to it on the main page. So people will "dot" a thread so it is easier to notice/find later.
Ah, so it's like bumping the thread so it doesn't get buried, or adding it to your watch list. Thanks for the explanation. ^_^
|
|
It sounds like your GM is just making bad calls, outlawing things after the fact, and then publicly berating you for taking something that is perfectly legal by the rules. There is no clear listing of the house rules or what is allow for character creation, and then he is acting like a jerk when you accidentally break one of his house rules that he didn't bother to tell you about.
I'd find a different game.
Hey Wazat,
I ran a "one-shot" cleric archer through the last half of LoF AP, had vital and deadly aim. Since I was feat starved, needed feats to aid spell casting and archery, i didn't feel like my arching skills would ever be good enough to worry about secondary attacks. I loved it. I felt like Robin Hood and when I shot vital could help punch through DR. Also you burn through less arrows and can afford to purchase a few high end fun ones, like bane, to really stick it your targets.
Imbicatus: yea, that's how I'm feeling about it.
Broken: That's awesome. I can see how Vital Shot is valuable for a medium BAB growth character with a wider stat spread, since their lowered accuracy and attack count means one heavy&accurate hit can be very helpful. I also love the feel of making one attack count, instead of needing to rely on rapid-fire. Like you said, feels like Robin Hood.
It would be neat if there was a divine variant of Arcane Archer, btw. ^_^
We talked in my campaign about homebrewing a prestige class that attaches scrolls to arrows, activating the scrolls on hit. Or an alchemist archer, imbuing each shot with a splash potion or other alchemical effect. I haven't pursued it though, since it sounds like a high-gold-upkeep class. Not sure what turns me off about that, just seems vulnerable to flat-lining if time, cash or materials become scarce.
BTW:
If someone is using Vital Strike, Deadly Aim and Bullseye Shot, seems like Arcane Strike would be worthwhile too -- you're already using your move and standard actions, and unless you have a frequent use for your swift actions, then Arcane Strike is good action economy for an extra 1 or more damage.
Sadly it doesn't work for divine classes. :( Would have been ideal for that cleric. Still nice for a wizard/bard/sorcerer with arcane archer though.
DesolateHarmony: Sorry, missed your post. Yea, if I switch to composite longbow, gravity bow adds some delightful potency to Vital Strike.
It's funny, my GM was actually telling me off for taking Gravity Bow because he thought it could be combined with Enlarge Person. I had to explain that no, it's not that overpowered because arrows don't work with Enlarge Person; I'm totally not munchkining it as much as he was imagining in his head. Still going to be unlikely with gravity bow though -- that may ultimately be another unspoken banned feat. He likes to not explicitly mark things as banned . Technically Clustered Shots is the only option officially in our ban list -- other feats and spells are just silently condemned through unspoken rules which players discover the hard way. :(
On Cluster shot. As GM I think that feat is bad feat, not broken just silly. There is no reason to not cluster shot everything once it get it. I think there should -2 to hit with it. I mean you are trying to be much more accurate after all. To use rapid shot you take -2 why not clustered shot?
voska66: That actually sounds like a pretty reasonable houserule. Either that or a small penalty to damage (you're bypassing DR more easily, but doing slightly less damage than if the foe had no DR). For example, -2 damage, or the damage die size category drops by 1, so d8 -> d6 per arrow or something. I'd have to think for a while about what would be most fair and balanced.
That sounds like a much better path to take than simply banning the feat. I'm all for adding cool options while balancing with trade-offs.
Edit: Range penalties are another option, e.g. only works within 30' ala point blank shot. Or reduce range increment by half, so long-range clustered shots quickly become unmanageable.
Best to talk to your DM about Zen Archer before actually making one. Their LV11 Class Feature: Trick Shot is really dependant on DM interpretation. Another thing you could do is be a Cleric of Erastil and aim for the Guided Hands feat for using WIS to hit with Longbows.
|
|
Best to talk to your DM about Zen Archer before actually making one. Their LV11 Class Feature: Trick Shot is really dependant on DM interpretation.
What about Trick Shot requires interpretation? It's very clearly states what it can do. I've seen GMs ban the archetype outright because they don't like it, but Trick shot is clear.
Trick Shot (Su)
At 11th level, a zen archer may hit targets that he might otherwise miss. By spending 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action, the zen archer can ignore concealment. By spending 2 points, he can ignore total concealment or cover. By spending 3 points, he can ignore total cover, even firing arrows around corners. The arrow must still be able to reach the target; a target inside a closed building with no open doors or windows cannot be attacked. These effects last for 1 round.
This ability replaces diamond body.
We'd need to see a full list of the GM's house rules, including how he plans to reduce the power level of the encounters you face.
I am against power gaming but this gm sounds like a total schmuck after reading the op. I don't ban stuff unless it's obviously broken. Other than that, there is a certain trust in my circle of two where we optimize to survive and hopefully advance but not so heavily that monsters and NPC's need tweaking to provide challenge. I feel sorry for ppl with tyrant GMs almost as much as I feel sorry for ppl whose GMs house rule the so called game rules to the extent that one can't identify what game they're actually playing.
@Imbicatus
The part of Trick Shot that needs DM interpretation is whether or not you need line of sight and know the target. Say for example, a foe runs around a corner on his turn and your turn you shoot. The ability says the arrow will fire around corners so you'll hit him.
Now, next example. The foe runs around the corner and then Dimension Doors 500ft behind you. Technically he's still within your range (assuming Composite Longbow w/ max range increment 1100ft), so does your arrow fly backwards?
Next example, there are 3 people disguised as the same foe, they all run around different corners and Dimension Door away. Does your arrow pierce through the disguise (whether magical or not) and target the one you think is the right one?
Next example, there's a bad guy you're chasing and you know he's in the building/dungeon/castle etc. Can you fire your arrow to attack him without ever seen the guy? Mix it with the previous example, and what happens then?
Sorry to derail the thread. This is clearly more something for Rules than Advice. If you want to talk about it more, you can go here, but it's kinda a necro though :p
For some reason I thought we were talking about the arcane archer's Seeker Arrow. ;)
In those situations I'd personally rule that Seeker Arrow has a divination component to it, so a target that's out of sight and shielded by lead wouldn't be locatable. Anything that doesn't fool Find Person or related divinations wouldn't fool trick shot. But even then, that leaves a lot open. And I'm not the GM in this case.
As for Trick Shot... that gets messy. That seems like a power that's intended to be mitigated by an assertive GM least it be abused.
I have another question (sorry to keep reviving the thread).
If this character dies and/or I go to a different gaming group, I'm considering switching to a Bard Arcane Archer. My question is, should I go full, 100% bard, full fighter with a tiny splash of bard, full bard with a splash of fighter, etc?
The fighter levels would drop in extra feats (very helpful), proficiencies, and a few useful class features like armor training and weapon training (depending on the number of fighter levels). The fighter also doesn't give up a BAB every 4 levels.
Alternatively, Bard just has so many fun bonuses, and he always benefits from more caster levels and spell levels. However, since I'm primarily focused on being a archer and the bard levels are there to enable arcane archer, I'm okay giving up some spell levels etc. I'm primarily an archer who occasionally casts.
I'm thinking 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats, maybe a third for armor training (to get the most dex bonus + armor bonus). At least 4 levels of Bard for inspire competence, bardic performance, 2nd level spells, etc. That means I would start AA levels around level 8 or 9, and I have 2-3 slush levels that could be either class.
So I could fill the rest of those levels with Fighter and have more archery and mounted feats to play with (and higher attack rolls), or I could fill those levels with Bard for his performances (inspire courage +2, for example, to help the entire party), spells, and other fun tricks. If I do 7 bard levels and only 1 fighter, then I can start my performance as a move action and still get a shot in (e.g. a vital strike).
So!
For those who have played something like this before or seen it played, do you have advice on what's more fun to play? Even if it's the less powerful option overall, if it's more enjoyable then I'm all in.
|
|
The viability of 3/4ths BAB archer really depends on how strictly your group is applying the cover rules. If they are applying them correctly, then any 3/4 BAB class as an archer is going to be a switch hitter at best, as without access to Improved Precise Shot you cannot function as a primary archer if cover is being applied correctly.
The viability of 3/4ths BAB archer really depends on how strictly your group is applying the cover rules. If they are applying them correctly, then any 3/4 BAB class as an archer is going to be a switch hitter at best, as without access to Improved Precise Shot you cannot function as a primary archer if cover is being applied correctly.
Agreed, you really need precise shot and improved precise shot. Inspire Courage and heroism only go so far.
Although you could use arcane strike instead of deadly aim. That will help with the 3/4 BAB.
So once creatures are exploiting cover and concealment, a bard or rogue archer just doesn't have the accuracy to deal with them. Ouch, okay that's important to note. I'm guessing that's particularly a problem at high levels, where the lost BAB starts to really accumulate.
If I have 4 or 5 levels of bard, maybe even 7 (for move action performance), I'm at a -1 or -2 to attack compared to a full BAB class. However, those are probably the last bard levels I'll take, and Fighter and Arcane Archer both have high BAB growth. I'm not sure what I'd do at higher levels if I didn't take the full AA path, probably more fighter levels to get its features.
This may be a situation where the Bullseye Shot + Vital Strike + Arcane Strike combo is really helpful, compared to Rapid Shot + Manyshot. The +4 bullseye shot attack bonus (when I have a spare move action) and the lack of penalties from rapid shot and full round attack cumulative penalties may give the bard the ability to tag his foes reliably again, and then he does a small amount of extra damage with vital strike and arcane strike. This also fits with the bard's play style and action economy better, as he's often more concerned with switching around his performances and moving out of range of foes than dealing maximum pain per turn.
Or is it still better to go with rapid shot and manyshot?
So once creatures are exploiting cover and concealment, a bard or rogue archer just doesn't have the accuracy to deal with them. Ouch, okay that's important to note. I'm guessing that's particularly a problem at high levels, where the lost BAB starts to really accumulate.
If I have 4 or 5 levels of bard, maybe even 7 (for move action performance), I'm at a -1 or -2 to attack compared to a full BAB class. However, those are probably the last bard levels I'll take, and Fighter and Arcane Archer both have high BAB growth. I'm not sure what I'd do at higher levels if I didn't take the full AA path, probably more fighter levels to get its features.
This may be a situation where the Bullseye Shot + Vital Strike + Arcane Strike combo is really helpful, compared to Rapid Shot + Manyshot. The +4 bullseye shot attack bonus (when I have a spare move action) and the lack of penalties from rapid shot and full round attack cumulative penalties may give the bard the ability to tag his foes reliably again, and then he does a small amount of extra damage with vital strike and arcane strike. This also fits with the bard's play style and action economy better, as he's often more concerned with switching around his performances and moving out of range of foes than dealing maximum pain per turn.
Or is it still better to go with rapid shot and manyshot?
The penalties from foes seeking cover isn't the problem. Generally you can wait for your enemies to venture into the open. The problem is the -4 to hit for firing into melee and that penalty stacks with the -4 for soft cover if a creature (read ally) is between you and your target.
You can get rid of both of those penalties with precise shot/improved precise shot.
As to your other question, I would go rapid shot / many shot over vital strike. I would use arcane strike over deadly aim and that alone will almost completely offset your BAB issue without killing damage output. Making use of bard spells like good hope will also help .
How thrilled are people about Pinpoint Targeting? I could pick it up around level 19, so it's pretty late-game and it only allows a single shot. However, it ignores all Armor/Natural/Shield bonuses to AC, basically like making a ranged touch attack with my bow.
It also inherently ignores any cover and concealment beyond Total because of its prerequisites (improved precise shot), though I'm already getting those bonuses to my other attacks.
Sadly it cannot be combined with rapid attacks, vital shot, etc. One shot maybe isn't all that impressive. It can use Bullseye Shot (which isn't necessary), Deadly Aim, and Arcane Strike though. It won't play nice with most uses of Imbue Arrow and can't work with Seeker Arrow.
How useful is it to eradicate the enemy's physical armored AC bonuses for a single shot?
It is not very useful. Single shot is going to be nearly an auto-hit. I pointed this out earlier in the thread.
Sounds good, feat scrapped.
Attributes (human):
Str 10
Con 10
Dex 18
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 16
Feats (FYI humans in this campaign don't get a bonus feat):
F1 Arcane Strike, Point Blank Shot
B1
B2 Lingering Performance
B3
B4 Precise Shot
B5
B6 Weapon Focus
B7
AA1 Rapid Shot
AA2
AA3 Manyshot
AA4
AA5 Improved Precise Shot
AA6
AA7 Harmonic Spell
AA8
AA9 Vital Strike? (times when I cannot make full attack, e.g. start/change bard performance with move action)
AA10
B9 Deadly Aim/Improved Vital Strike/Iron Will?
B10
I'll be wielding a composite longbow and wearing light armor (padded leather or lower, as Dex mod climbs).
If you stick the Character Level in front of the class level it makes it easier for people to figure out your feats.
Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with this build?
|
|
You can't take Arcane strike at first level if you take fighter first as a human because you have no spells or SLAs. You should take Precise Shot and Point Blank at one, and then push back Arcane Strike.
You STR is far too low, 10 will seriously hurt your damage. You want to have a 12 minimum, although a 14 is better. CHA 14 is sufficient for bard spellcasting.
Attributes (human):
Str 14
Con 10
Dex 18
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 14
Feats (FYI humans in this campaign don't get a bonus feat):
L1 F1 Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
L2 B1
L3 B2 Arcane Strike
L4 B3
L5 B4 Lingering Performance
L6 B5
L7 B6 Weapon Focus
L8 B7
L9 AA1 Rapid Shot
L10 AA2
L11 AA3 Manyshot
L12 AA4
L13 AA5 Improved Precise Shot
L14 AA6
L15 AA7 Harmonic Spell
L16 AA8
L17 AA9 Vital Strike? (times when I cannot make full attack, e.g. start/change bard performance with move action)
L18 AA10
L19 B9 Deadly Aim/Improved Vital Strike/Iron Will?
L20 B10
Gauss: I'm trying to make a bard who's also an effective arcane archer. And I want the build to basically be fun. It won't deal max damage by any sense of the word, but it should be effective at killing enemies and empowering the team. Also, I'll probably be the party face.
Imbicatus: Good point, I've fixed arcane strike (I did some last-minute shuffles, that's why it was wrong).
I assume you mean I'll be using a composite longbow with STR1 or STR2, and that's why strength 10 would harm my damage.
I'm a little worried I won't be able to cast 5th level bard spells (which I'll be picking up around level 16). I believe at the last second I'll also pick up 6th level spells (L20). We don't have stat-on-a-stick items so I won't be able to artificially boost Cha, although Eagle's Splendor might count?