| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im kinda confused about it. Does it get it for free?
Im trying to figure it out
Is it considered a mounted combat feat? Yes.
Can a sohei select it as a bonus feat, like all mounted combat feats? Yes.
Can a sohei bypass all the prerequisites, like they can with all their bonus feats? Yes.
Does this allow a sohei to get Mounted Skirmisher at level one? Yes.
Is this ridiculous? Yes.
Ive seen some people argue that you get the same feats as Ranger combat feats, but im not sure.
It does seem broken
Meh. Sohei doesn't get a mount from class levels, so would need to dip into other classes or spend several other feats to get a mount of appropriate level.
You need to prove that Mounted Skirmisher (and anything that is Mounted) is a "Mounted Combat Feat" before you can say you can select it with your Bonus Feats feature. However, that's impossible to do. Why?
Per the rules, it falls under a not-defined list, because there's nothing in the rules that properly defines what a "Mounted Combat Feat" is. So, trying to say it's a "Mounted Combat Feat" means nothing, because there's nothing in the game that is quantified as a "Mounted Combat Feat."
Is it a Feat that has (Combat) on it and includees Mounted Combat as a requirement? A fair and reasonable definition, sure, but it's not one that the class gives, so it can very much mean something entirely, which leads to table variation, which leads to it not being a legitimate rules answer. (It also means you can't select Mounted Combat as a Bonus Feat, ironically enough, since you can't have a feat be a part of its own pre-requisite.)
So... by "free" you mean 'earlier than normal'?Thirteen levels earlier. And without spending one of your normal feat slots. Sounds pretty free to me.
It's not free.
You could choose something else with your bonus feat.
Meh. Sohei doesn't get a mount from class levels, so would need to dip into other classes or spend several other feats to get a mount of appropriate level.The bonus feat's enormous potential doesn't come from sohei monks who dip levels in other classes, it comes from other classes who dip a level in sohei.
The Leadership feat allows you to acquire mounts.
You need to prove that Mounted Skirmisher (and anything that is Mounted) is a "Mounted Combat Feat" before you can say you can select it with your Bonus Feats feature. However, that's impossible to do. Why?
Per the rules, it falls under a not-defined list, because there's nothing in the rules that properly defines what a "Mounted Combat Feat" is. So, trying to say it's a "Mounted Combat Feat" means nothing, because there's nothing in the game that is quantified as a "Mounted Combat Feat."
Is it a Feat that has (Combat) on it and includees Mounted Combat as a requirement? A fair and reasonable definition, sure, but it's not one that the class gives, so it can very much mean something entirely, which leads to table variation, which leads to it not being a legitimate rules answer. (It also means you can't select Mounted Combat as a Bonus Feat, ironically enough, since you can't have a feat be a part of its own pre-requisite.)
We can also continue fighting normally with the Dead condition, because nothing in RAW says we cannot.
Swords are not explicitly defined as made of metal, and are therefore unable to be constructed with special materials available only to metal weapons.
The developers have repeatedly stated common sense is assumed when reading the rules.
Isnt a bit op to get access to such feat at such low level?
Im afraid my dm wont allow it just on the basis that is broken as it is.
You need to prove that Mounted Skirmisher (and anything that is Mounted) is a "Mounted Combat Feat" before you can say you can select it with your Bonus Feats feature. However, that's impossible to do. Why?
Per the rules, it falls under a not-defined list, because there's nothing in the rules that properly defines what a "Mounted Combat Feat" is. So, trying to say it's a "Mounted Combat Feat" means nothing, because there's nothing in the game that is quantified as a "Mounted Combat Feat."
Is it a Feat that has (Combat) on it and includees Mounted Combat as a requirement? A fair and reasonable definition, sure, but it's not one that the class gives, so it can very much mean something entirely, which leads to table variation, which leads to it not being a legitimate rules answer. (It also means you can't select Mounted Combat as a Bonus Feat, ironically enough, since you can't have a feat be a part of its own pre-requisite.)
We can also continue fighting normally with the Dead condition, because nothing in RAW says we cannot.
Swords are not explicitly defined as made of metal, and are therefore unable to be constructed with special materials available only to metal weapons.
The developers have repeatedly stated common sense is assumed when reading the rules.
So then let me ask everyone a question:
What is a Mounted Combat Feat?
Mounted Combat and any feat that (directly or indirectly) has Mounted Combat as a prereq.What is a Mounted Combat Feat?
Again, a fair definition, but not one backed up by the rules. Let me give you an example of one that is:
Fighters get bonus feats. These bonus feats must be combat feats, right? So, what is a combat feat? A feat that specifically denotes such via the (Combat) additive.
Do you see any similar clarification for the likes of Mounted Combat feats? No. I see feats that have (Combat) on them to denote they are Combat feats, but I don't see feats that have (Mounted Combat) on them to denote they are Mounted Combat feats.
So, the idea that Mounted Combat feats is an all-inclusive list is horsepuckey, because there's nothing that actually tells us what that list is. At best, you can infer what that list is supposed to contain through the "common sense" that Snowlilly suggests, but even with that fair definition you've given, you'll end up with feats that aren't Mounted Combat feats that could be constituted as such, and vice versa.
And no, I'm not looking for an authentic answer when I posed that question, it was rhetorical to demonstrate a point. (I'll be surprised if somebody can give an actual rules citation, though.)
So, Darksol, what feats do you believe a Sohei monk can take as bonus feats?
So, Darksol, what feats do you believe a Sohei monk can take as bonus feats?
None more than what he originally has access to. That's ultimately the problem; the class does nothing to note what a Mounted Combat Feat is for selection, which means you can't add anything that can be construed as a Mounted Combat Feat without running into table variation because the GM isn't finding out what a Mounted Combat Feat is within the book, because the definition of what a Mounted Combat Feat is, does not exist.
Thus, you're basically shoehorned into guessing what a Mounted Combat Feat is, and hoping the GM will let it stick, though in some cases he won't because [reasons].
Ergo, it is best to err on the side of conservation, and say the feature is a dead feature, in the same vein that Kensai Magi can't pick their chosen weapon to affect their class features with, how Totem Barbarians are an archetype that actually does nothing to the base class itself, and so on.
|
Everyone seems to forget that Mounted Skirmisher does you no good without have multiple attacks (such as BaB +6). Which means for a lot of characters, this is not being useful until level 6 or 7 at the earliest. Which means you are getting the feat 4 or 5 levels early. This is no different then a Zen Archer getting Improved Precise Shot at level 6. Same power level, not that broken and as stated, does not work with charging. It is good for sure, but it also means taking levels in a class that does not progress your mount effective level and likely means taking Boon Companion or Horse Master.
|
@RSX: Sohei takes care of that too, flurry with a monk weapon. Sansetsukon or temple sword for example.
@Darksol: while you're correct that there's no formal definition of what makes something a Mounted feat, I disagree with your conclusion that it makes the class feature do nothing. And the way it's written it's clearly a non-empty set of feats.
I'd run with all feats that have "Mounted" in the name or that have Mounted Combat as a prerequisite.
If you don't try to stretch the set of mounted feats too far, I don't think you'll experience that many "GM says no" events.
|
|
@RSX: Sohei takes care of that too, flurry with a monk weapon. Sansetsukon or temple sword for example.
@Darksol: while you're correct that there's no formal definition of what makes something a Mounted feat, I disagree with your conclusion that it makes the class feature do nothing. And the way it's written it's clearly a non-empty set of feats.
I'd run with all feats that have "Mounted" in the name or that have Mounted Combat as a prerequisite.
If you don't try to stretch the set of mounted feats too far, I don't think you'll experience that many "GM says no" events.
Most people that do Sohei do not go straight monk, and since they already have good movement and the flurry ability, doing so a turn earlier in combat does not seem a big deal. Now, if they were using that flurry with a Greatsword at level 1, then I would have concerns.
And again, Monk does not gain Mount or Animal Companion. So either your buying a generic horse that never gets better, or you are taking other classes and spending feats to make it worth while.
Still less broken or OP then a Zen Archer.
@Darksol: while you're correct that there's no formal definition of what makes something a Mounted feat, I disagree with your conclusion that it makes the class feature do nothing. And the way it's written it's clearly a non-empty set of feats.
I'd run with all feats that have "Mounted" in the name or that have Mounted Combat as a prerequisite.
If you don't try to stretch the set of mounted feats too far, I don't think you'll experience that many "GM says no" events.
But what set do you take?
Also, that definition you gave is different (and therefore has different results) compared to somebody else who posted what they think the definition is, which means table variance in relation to the feature is, in fact, a thing, and we all know table variance isn't exactly a rules answer.
So, my point still stands.
|
Still less broken or OP then a Zen Archer.
Given that Sohei can stack Rapid Shot / Manyshot on top of flurry of blows, they can actually be even nastier bowmen than Zen Archers... at least since the FAQ allowing all flurry attacks to be made with a single weapon (which effectively changed ZA flurry of blows from a unique/powerful ability to a nerfed version of regular flurry).
Mounted Combat and any feat that (directly or indirectly) has Mounted Combat as a prereq.What is a Mounted Combat Feat?
Again, a fair definition, but not one backed up by the rules. Let me give you an example of one that is:
Fighters get bonus feats. These bonus feats must be combat feats, right? So, what is a combat feat? A feat that specifically denotes such via the (Combat) additive.
Do you see any similar clarification for the likes of Mounted Combat feats? No. I see feats that have (Combat) on them to denote they are Combat feats, but I don't see feats that have (Mounted Combat) on them to denote they are Mounted Combat feats.
So, the idea that Mounted Combat feats is an all-inclusive list is horsepuckey, because there's nothing that actually tells us what that list is. At best, you can infer what that list is supposed to contain through the "common sense" that Snowlilly suggests, but even with that fair definition you've given, you'll end up with feats that aren't Mounted Combat feats that could be constituted as such, and vice versa.
And no, I'm not looking for an authentic answer when I posed that question, it was rhetorical to demonstrate a point. (I'll be surprised if somebody can give an actual rules citation, though.)
If we disallow everything that lacks explicit rules without applying common sense, they entire game falls apart pretty quickly.
The above examples where we simply assume swords, and most other weapons are made of metal and that dead players cannot continue acting are examples of common sense without supporting RAW.
And again, Monk does not gain Mount or Animal Companion. So either your buying a generic horse that never gets better, or you are taking other classes and spending feats to make it worth while.
Special Cohorts & Companions
Source: PPC:KotIS
Some characters garner the aid of particularly powerful, intelligent, or magical creatures to serve them. A character must have the Leadership feat in order to enlist such a creature.
The following examples are some of the most common monstrous cohorts and where the stats for each can be found, as well as the creature's effective cohort level for the purpose of determining a character's requisite Leadership score and character level in order to enlist the aid of the creature.
Since we are sticking to RAW - any character can gain a special mount. Without the presence of house rules, you can eventually ride a dragon, though not necessarily the best choice.
Granted, character with Animal companions could take Monstrous Companion instead of Leadership and have a mount with class levels, definitely better than what the Sohei alone gets, but what the heck, can still ride a Nightmare.
|
|
Still less broken or OP then a Zen Archer.Given that Sohei can stack Rapid Shot / Manyshot on top of flurry of blows, they can actually be even nastier bowmen than Zen Archers... at least since the FAQ allowing all flurry attacks to be made with a single weapon (which effectively changed ZA flurry of blows from a unique/powerful ability to a nerfed version of regular flurry).
How are you flurrying with a bow as a Sohei? Bows are not Monk weapons. Also you still do not get Precise Shot and Improved Precise shot for bonus, so your Sohei will need lots of feats to come close to what the Zen Archer can do. There is also the issue of firing a bow Rapid Shot from your mount being full of penalties.
How are you flurrying with a bow as a Sohei? Bows are not Monk weapons. Also you still do not get Precise Shot and Improved Precise shot for bonus, so your Sohei will need lots of feats to come close to what the Zen Archer can do. There is also the issue of firing a bow Rapid Shot from your mount being full of penalties.Still less broken or OP then a Zen Archer.Given that Sohei can stack Rapid Shot / Manyshot on top of flurry of blows, they can actually be even nastier bowmen than Zen Archers... at least since the FAQ allowing all flurry attacks to be made with a single weapon (which effectively changed ZA flurry of blows from a unique/powerful ability to a nerfed version of regular flurry).
Sohei can flurry with any weapon with which it has fighter training.
Bows are a legal choice.
At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spears, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional group of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training.
|
|
How are you flurrying with a bow as a Sohei? Bows are not Monk weapons.
"A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training."
There is also the issue of firing a bow Rapid Shot from your mount being full of penalties.
Unless the mount is moving faster than its normal speed there are no additional penalties for bow attacks made while mounted. So, "full of penalties" = 'same penalties you'd have unmounted'.
Mounted Combat and any feat that (directly or indirectly) has Mounted Combat as a prereq.What is a Mounted Combat Feat?
Again, a fair definition, but not one backed up by the rules. Let me give you an example of one that is:
Fighters get bonus feats. These bonus feats must be combat feats, right? So, what is a combat feat? A feat that specifically denotes such via the (Combat) additive.
Do you see any similar clarification for the likes of Mounted Combat feats? No. I see feats that have (Combat) on them to denote they are Combat feats, but I don't see feats that have (Mounted Combat) on them to denote they are Mounted Combat feats.
So, the idea that Mounted Combat feats is an all-inclusive list is horsepuckey, because there's nothing that actually tells us what that list is. At best, you can infer what that list is supposed to contain through the "common sense" that Snowlilly suggests, but even with that fair definition you've given, you'll end up with feats that aren't Mounted Combat feats that could be constituted as such, and vice versa.
And no, I'm not looking for an authentic answer when I posed that question, it was rhetorical to demonstrate a point. (I'll be surprised if somebody can give an actual rules citation, though.)
If we disallow everything that lacks explicit rules without applying common sense, they entire game falls apart pretty quickly.
The above examples where we simply assume swords, and most other weapons are made of metal and that dead players cannot continue acting are examples of common sense without supporting RAW.
Clearly, but that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is your ideal of common sense can't reasonably apply to a situation like this.
Similarly, "Mounted Combat Feats" aren't as implicitly defined as things like the Dead condition or Swords, as evidenced by people giving me two different definitions of what "Mounted Combat Feats" are.
Clearly, but that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is your ideal of common sense can't reasonably apply to a situation like this.
Similarly, "Mounted Combat Feats" aren't as implicitly defined as things like the Dead condition or Swords, as evidenced by people giving me two...
Mounted Combat feats are simple.
The Mounted Combat feat and all feats using Mounted Combat as a prerequisite or that otherwise states it is used during mounted combat.
I.e. if the feat says Mounted Combat in it's text or requirements, it is a mounted combat feat.
Nice, easy, simple, and no more difficult than the assumption (unsupported by RAW) that swords are made of steel unless otherwise specified.
Clearly, but that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is your ideal of common sense can't reasonably apply to a situation like this.
Similarly, "Mounted Combat Feats" aren't as implicitly defined as things like the Dead condition or Swords, as evidenced by people giving me two...
Mounted Combat feats are simple.
The Mounted Combat feat and all feats using Mounted Combat as a prerequisite or that otherwise states it is used during mounted combat.
I.e. if the feat says Mounted Combat in it's text or requirements, it is a mounted combat feat.
Nice, easy, simple, and no more difficult than the assumption (unsupported by RAW) that swords are made of steel unless otherwise specified.
Again, sure it can be, and that is once again a definition that is different than the other two that have been provided to me.
So all you're really doing is proving my point: what constitutes a Mounted Combat Feat needs to be clarified.
Clearly, but that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is your ideal of common sense can't reasonably apply to a situation like this.
Similarly, "Mounted Combat Feats" aren't as implicitly defined as things like the Dead condition or Swords, as evidenced by people giving me two...
Mounted Combat feats are simple.
The Mounted Combat feat and all feats using Mounted Combat as a prerequisite or that otherwise states it is used during mounted combat.
I.e. if the feat says Mounted Combat in it's text or requirements, it is a mounted combat feat.
Nice, easy, simple, and no more difficult than the assumption (unsupported by RAW) that swords are made of steel unless otherwise specified.
Again, sure it can be, and that is once again a definition that is different than the other two that have been provided to me.
So all you're really doing is proving my point: what constitutes a Mounted Combat Feat needs to be clarified.
The differences in definitions offered to date are mostly a question of semantics. They are all functionally the same unless broken down by the truly pedantic.
All that is being demonstrated is that the simpler the concept, the more complex the explanation. The simplest of concepts, the ones most people understand intuitively can often require absurdly long and convoluted explanations to state the concept in formal terms with zero ambiguity.
Take the concept of 1+1=2; Principia Mathematica took 362 pages to prove this was true.
The differences in definitions offered to date are mostly a question of semantics. They are all functionally the same unless broken down by the truly pedantic.
|
|
How are you flurrying with a bow as a Sohei? Bows are not Monk weapons."A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training."
There is also the issue of firing a bow Rapid Shot from your mount being full of penalties.Unless the mount is moving faster than its normal speed there are no additional penalties for bow attacks made while mounted. So, "full of penalties" = 'same penalties you'd have unmounted'.
If you are only single moving on your mount, then what is the point to having it? Your monk speed will be the same very likely. So why do you have a mount if you are not going to take advantage of it? So yeah, you could flurry with you rapid shot and sit in the back, but you do not need a mount for that. And since this thread was about taking Mounted Skirmisher, you are talking about splitting your focus between range and mounted combat, but you lack enough feats to do this as effective as other classes in the end. So I reassert my point, Sohei is not really OP.
If you are only single moving on your mount, then what is the point to having it? Your monk speed will be the same very likely. So why do you have a mount if you are not going to take advantage of it? So yeah, you could flurry with you rapid shot and sit in the back, but you do not need a mount for that. And since this thread was about taking Mounted Skirmisher, you are talking about splitting your focus between range and mounted combat, but you lack enough feats to do this as effective as other classes in the end. So I reassert my point, Sohei is not really OP.How are you flurrying with a bow as a Sohei? Bows are not Monk weapons."A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training."
There is also the issue of firing a bow Rapid Shot from your mount being full of penalties.Unless the mount is moving faster than its normal speed there are no additional penalties for bow attacks made while mounted. So, "full of penalties" = 'same penalties you'd have unmounted'.
A single move on your mount before making a full attack is still a lot more than the five foot step most people are limited to.
You can also do a passable switch hitter build, although Sohei would take a while to come online if you wanted to flurry with a non-monk weapon. The Sohei's melee doesn't need too much feat investment beyond Power Attack (though it can certainly benefit from it).
|
|
Most people that do Sohei do not go straight monk, and since they already have good movement and the flurry ability, doing so a turn earlier in combat does not seem a big deal. Now, if they were using that flurry with a Greatsword at level 1, then I would have concerns.
A sansetsukon is almost the same as a greatsword. D10 instead of 2D6. It's not strictly as good but quite close.
|
|
@Darksol: I've gone through the thread to compare definitions of mounted combat feats and these are the ones that have been given:
1) The feats of the ranger combat style.
2) Mounted Combat and all (combat) feats that have it as a prerequisite.
3) Any feat with "mounted" in it's name or with Mounted Combat as a prerequisite.
4) Mounted Combat and all (combat) feats that have it as a prerequisite. (again)
Now #1 is interesting because it actually gives you options split by level 2, 6 and 10, which maps fairly well to when a monk gains bonus feats.
But that isn't what the text says, and the Slayer for example is a lot more explicit about using a Ranger list of feats.
#2-4 are all almost the same. I realize now on closer reading that it indeed says "mounted combat feats", so I'd add the requirement of a [combat] tag to my definition. On inspection I can't actually find any feat I'd call a mounted combat feat that doesn't have Mounted Combat as a prerequisite, so #2/4 are fine by me.
I think if you interviewed a hundred casual players and gave them a list of feats to classify as "mounted combat" or not, you'd get almost the same results from everyone. Yeah, it's not as neat and strict as a formal definition, but if almost everyone comes to the same conclusions then the informal description isn't so bad.
Can you come up with examples of feats for which their status as "mounted combat feat" would actually be uncertain to people?
Is this ridiculous? Yes.
I figure "you take a feat normally unavailable until level 14 at level 1 because it's entirely allowable by the rules" to be the sort of thing that causes the GM to add a whole lot of stairs to the campaign, because that's entirely allowable by the rules.
On inspection I can't actually find any feat I'd call a mounted combat feat that doesn't have Mounted Combat as a prerequisite, so #2/4 are fine by me.
Mounted Combat does not have itself as a prerequisite.
I pedantic arguments require no assumptions are made.
|
|
Is this ridiculous? Yes.I figure "you take a feat normally unavailable until level 14 at level 1 because it's entirely allowable by the rules" to be the sort of thing that causes the GM to add a whole lot of stairs to the campaign, because that's entirely allowable by the rules.
And this is why I like PFS, no random stairs spawning all over.
But honestly, out of our 100+ player base in our local venture lodge, I am the only person I have seen use Sohei to grab Mounted Skirmisher, and it was not useful until level 7 when I had a BAB +6.
There is always going to be people that have some problem with anything that lets you get powerful feats earlier, that is the nature of tabletop games.
|
Mounted Combat does not have itself as a prerequisite.I pedantic arguments require no assumptions are made.
If you apply this utterly absurd level of pedantry then NOTHING is legal and NOTHING is illegal and its time to play another game.
The rules can just NOT withstand that level of silliness.
I'm unsure why you're arguing.
If you're just trying to say "Well, its not 100% clear" then
1) Your right
2) Its totally irrelevant because absolutely NOTHING is 100% clear in written text.
As stated upthread, EVERYBODY elses definition yields identical or nearly identical results.
Mounted Combat does not have itself as a prerequisite.I pedantic arguments require no assumptions are made.
If you apply this utterly absurd level of pedantry then NOTHING is legal and NOTHING is illegal and its time to play another game.
The rules can just NOT withstand that level of silliness.
I'm unsure why you're arguing.
If you're just trying to say "Well, its not 100% clear" then
1) Your right
2) Its totally irrelevant because absolutely NOTHING is 100% clear in written text.As stated upthread, EVERYBODY elses definition yields identical or nearly identical results.
I was commenting on the careful wording of what I considered a mounted combat feat.
I worded my response in such a way that the Mounted Combat feat itself would be included as a mounted combat feat. A level of detail beyond which most Pathfinder material is written, as common sense is assumed.
|
|
If you are only single moving on your mount, then what is the point to having it? Your monk speed will be the same very likely.
Because if you move your speed while unmounted you are limited to a single attack. If your mount moves you at its speed you can still make a (ranged) full attack.
That said, the point is that Sohei can be better bowmen (even UNmounted) than Zen Archers. Ergo, if ZAs are 'overpowered' then Sohei must be too.
If you are only single moving on your mount, then what is the point to having it? Your monk speed will be the same very likely.Because if you move your speed while unmounted you are limited to a single attack. If your mount moves you at its speed you can still make a (ranged) full attack.
That said, the point is that Sohei can be better bowmen (even UNmounted) than Zen Archers. Ergo, if ZAs are 'overpowered' then Sohei must be too.
While true that sohei are better archers than zen monks, fighters are even better archers.
I challenge you to make the argument that fighters are overpowered outside this thread.
The big advantage sohei gets is on initiative - they are competitive with diviners.
|
|
Sohei are only better than ZAMs if you completely ignore all the free feats ZAMs get and focus only on number of attacks per round.
ZAM gets:
- Bow flurry from level 1.
- Precise Shot at level 1 without having to be human.
- Pay the Point Blank Shot feat tax with a bonus feat.
- Weapon Focus as a bonus.
- Point Blank Master, normally Fighter-only at about level 5, they get it at level 3. This has been sooooo useful when I have to tank.
- Wisdom to-hit. Mostly means you'll have a bit more Ki and flat-footed defense than the sohei because he's using Dex to-hit.
- Weapon Specialization, again a fighter-only feat.
- Improved Precise Shot at level 6, while a Sohei might be able to take it at level 15.
Sohei are solid viable archers, but ZAMs are optimized archers without spending any regular feats at all.
what constitutes a Mounted Combat Feat needs to be clarified.
Considering that "Combat Feat" is well defined, and "Mounted" is well defined, I'm not really seeing the issue. A Mounted Combat Feat is a combat feat that applies to being mounted. This takes nothing more than applying words literally.
Sohei are only better than ZAMs if you completely ignore all the free feats ZAMs get and focus only on number of attacks per round.
ZAM gets:
- Bow flurry from level 1.
- Precise Shot at level 1 without having to be human.
- Pay the Point Blank Shot feat tax with a bonus feat.
- Weapon Focus as a bonus.
- Point Blank Master, normally Fighter-only at about level 5, they get it at level 3. This has been sooooo useful when I have to tank.
- Wisdom to-hit. Mostly means you'll have a bit more Ki and flat-footed defense than the sohei because he's using Dex to-hit.
- Weapon Specialization, again a fighter-only feat.
- Improved Precise Shot at level 6, while a Sohei might be able to take it at level 15.Sohei are solid viable archers, but ZAMs are optimized archers without spending any regular feats at all.
Zen Archers are probably the best archers at low to moderate levels (level 12 or less). However, after this point they simply lack the methods to really stack damage to be as effective as other classes.
Fighter with weapon training, Warpriest with divine favor/power (especially Arsenal Chaplain which gets weapon training), Inquisitor with judgments and bane, and Rangers with FE using Instant Enemy are all better long term in my opinion, but it takes until higher levels for that to happen, and they take longer to get many of the essential archery feats.
Sohei are only better than ZAMs if you completely ignore all the free feats ZAMs get and focus only on number of attacks per round.
ZAM gets:
- Bow flurry from level 1.
- Precise Shot at level 1 without having to be human.
- Pay the Point Blank Shot feat tax with a bonus feat.
- Weapon Focus as a bonus.
- Point Blank Master, normally Fighter-only at about level 5, they get it at level 3. This has been sooooo useful when I have to tank.
- Wisdom to-hit. Mostly means you'll have a bit more Ki and flat-footed defense than the sohei because he's using Dex to-hit.
- Weapon Specialization, again a fighter-only feat.
- Improved Precise Shot at level 6, while a Sohei might be able to take it at level 15.Sohei are solid viable archers, but ZAMs are optimized archers without spending any regular feats at all.
Weapon Training and Dueling Gloves give Sohei a better to-hit and more damager / hit on all those extra arrows.
Ki Weapon gives additional bonuses on to-hit and damage / hit on all those extra arrows.
The sohei qualifies for Warrior Spirit.
Higher initiative means those arrows are more likely to hit before an opponent can act.
The ability to flurry while wearing armor reduces the importance of wisdom. (And gives a much better flat-footed AC to an archetype that is never surprised and has obscene initiative modifiers.)
ZAM's receive a few specific feats earlier than a sohei, but the sohei has access to things the ZAM never gets.
|
|
Sohei are only better than ZAMs if you completely ignore all the free feats ZAMs get and focus only on number of attacks per round.
ZAM gets:
- Bow flurry from level 1.
- Precise Shot at level 1 without having to be human.
- Pay the Point Blank Shot feat tax with a bonus feat.
- Weapon Focus as a bonus.
- Point Blank Master, normally Fighter-only at about level 5, they get it at level 3. This has been sooooo useful when I have to tank.
- Wisdom to-hit. Mostly means you'll have a bit more Ki and flat-footed defense than the sohei because he's using Dex to-hit.
- Weapon Specialization, again a fighter-only feat.
- Improved Precise Shot at level 6, while a Sohei might be able to take it at level 15.Sohei are solid viable archers, but ZAMs are optimized archers without spending any regular feats at all.
Weapon Training and Dueling Gloves give Sohei a better to-hit and more damager / hit on all those extra arrows.
Ki Weapon gives additional bonuses on to-hit and damage / hit on all those extra arrows.
The sohei qualifies for Warrior Spirit.
Higher initiative means those arrows are more likely to hit before an opponent can act.
The ability to flurry while wearing armor reduces the importance of wisdom. (And gives a much better flat-footed AC to an archetype that is never surprised and has obscene initiative modifiers.)
ZAM's receive a few specific feats earlier than a sohei, but the sohei has access to things the ZAM never gets.
You will not be ignoring cover like a ZAM, so your still hitting about the same or less until much higher level.
You have a feat tax that you can not by pass the pre-reqs for like ZAM. So you are spending early feats to get to Rapid Shot.
You have no Mount feature, so if you are not taking other class levels, your likely is dead against any real threat very quickly.
You have Light Armor Proficiency, so flurrying in Armor is pointless since the ZAM will likely have a higher Wis then 19. So enjoy your chain shirt unless again you are watering down your levels with another class, which means you are not getting those Sohei features as soon. And since Monk AC bonus applies to Flat Footed AC, seems a wash.
You also do not get Point Blank Master or Weapon Specialization without taking another class to give you access.
If we are taking both classes going straight Monk, then I do not see Sohei really being better then ZAM. Just different. And from PFS play perspective, not as good at being an since we are taking level 12 and below.
A Sohei switch-hitter with the Animal Ally feats and bonus Mounted Skirmisher is the most fun; Mongol Style.
Bow flurry removes the need for archery feats most of the time, and in any situation where archery isn't working out for whatever reason, they can switch over to full-on Mounted Skirmisher 9-ring flurry at the drop of a dime. Dual Talent Human and the ability to flurry in a mithral breastplate means they can pull-off starting stats as high as 18STR, 18DEX without much trouble.