I've made 2 Zen Archers, and have leveled both from 1-6+. The First took Deadeye Bowman because I didn't want to fight with cover for 5 levels. The Second I would use surprise rounds to reposition myself when I couldn't full attack anyway, and would occasionally have to delay a couple points of initiative to let brainless party members 5' step to clear my firing lane. But I really didn't have to take many more shots with cover than the first character did.
With basic tactics and intelligent play this trait really doesn't offer much unless you're trying to target the baddie in the back and other baddies are in the way. Playing with people who can't do anything but double move adjacent so the baddie gets a free full round attack on them, this is a must have. But even as a must Have I don't feel it's exceptionally over powered to simply treat one creature as if it weren't there.
While I agree with the premise that this trait is good, but not too good, I think Zen Archer is a bad example. They can Point Blank Master from level 3. If cover becomes an issue, they can just stand adjacent.
But saying that a Composite Longbow is not a Longbow, I mean.
Extra traits doesn't make the traits count as feats, they're the results of a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This like discussing that swords can't be made of cold iron because no where does it say they're made of metal
Its fun to be pedantic sometimes :p
This like discussing that swords can't be made of cold iron because no where does it say they're made of metal
Or that you can't make a flint knife even though it's one of the examples of what you can make with stone...
Don't be an @$$ because Firebug found a flaw in the rules. You can talk RAI all you want, heck based on this comment "It's just less powerful then (likely) RAI" it appears Firebug agrees that RAI it should work. None of that changes the fact that it doesn't. I mean Slashing Grace was intended to work with Rapiers, does that change the fact that the way it was written it doesn't work with Rapiers? No, Devs realized their mistake and came up with an new feat (Fencing Grace).
So as much as you may not agree with it, and you are totally welcome to ignore it (I know I will) RAW is very clear that DEB doesn't work with a composite bow.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it take some interpretation to say the a composite longbow is not a longbow. If I rule calls out a longbow it applies to both. If a rule calls out a composite longbow it just applies to just a composite longbow.
All composite longbow are longbows but not all longbows are composite.
Master of the Sudden Strike give you benefits with swords so there are cases where paizo uses "classes" of weapons that are not defined in the rules. So best is can be said it raw is unclear so people even in pfs should use their best judgment.
|
Ultimate Equipment literally repeats the Core Rulebook, and the Core Rulebook doesn't use Traits - the CRB uses nothing from other books. Ultimate Equipment also doesn't mention traits anywhere in the whole book. It's written to be self-contained, needing no books beyond the core book (except for a few class-specific items).
So while the composite longbow equipment entry doesn't talk about traits, you can't take that as a statement of intention about traits. There's no statement in either direction, because traits don't "exist" in the CRB.
---
I do agree with most people here: all composite longbows are longbows. Not all longbows are composite longbows. And you can find that implication in the longbow entry:
You can apply your Strength modifier to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow, but not a regular longbow. A longbow fires arrows.
So a composite longbow is a longbow, albeit not a "regular" one. Any ability that specifically applies only to "regular longbows" won't apply to composite longbows.
Master of the Sudden Strike give you benefits with swords so there are cases where paizo uses "classes" of weapons that are not defined in the rules. So best is can be said it raw is unclear so people even in pfs should use their best judgment.
The class of weapon would be Ranged, or even Bows, Longbow is not a class of weapon, so no RAW isn't is not unclear at all, you just don't like what it says and are trying to get around it.
Ultimate Equipment literally repeats the Core Rulebook, and the Core Rulebook doesn't use Traits - the CRB uses nothing from other books. Ultimate Equipment also doesn't mention traits anywhere in the whole book. It's written to be self-contained, needing no books beyond the core book (except for a few class-specific items).
So while the composite longbow equipment entry doesn't talk about traits, you can't take that as a statement of intention about traits. There's no statement in either direction, because traits don't "exist" in the CRB.
I opened Ultimate Equipment up to a random page (129) and found Vermin Shape that's found in Ultimate Magic, and Mind Blank, that's found in Ultimate Combat. I'm sure if I looked I could find more, but no Ultimate Equipment doesn't just use Core.
Existence doesn't really matter, the Devs have stated repeatedly that you don't get to change the rules because something came later. They've even changed what the word meant and we still have to follow the way the rule reads now. Look though the FAQ and you'll see TONS of examples of this
So a composite longbow is a longbow, albeit not a "regular" one. Any ability that specifically applies only to "regular longbows" won't apply to composite longbows.
Since they are obviously two different weapons, it would have to specifically apply to both. Pathfinder rules are inclusive, not exclusive. You can't do something just because no rule says you can't. Since the only specific things we have are Feats and Proficiency, nothing else is included.
I get it, it's stupid that it doesn't include traits. It should and is probably meant to. As it stands right now though, by RAW it does not. There's no confusion, nothing is ambiguous, it flat out doesn't say traits. If you want to ignore that, have at it, I plan to.
Since they are obviously two different weapons
You appear to be the only person here who thinks a composite longbow isn't a type of longbow, which suggests it isn't 'obvious'.
Longbow may or may not be a class of weapon, but it's definitely a word in the English language.
You appear to be the only person here who thinks a composite longbow isn't a type of longbow, which suggests it isn't 'obvious'.
Dude... The composite longbow is listed as a different weapon... and says it counts as a longbow for feats an proficiency, Which means it isn't a longbow.
Is it Stupid? Yes. Yes it is. No one is saying differently. But it is how it is written.
What is wrong is your claim that your interpretation is the one true correct interpretation of RAW, so anyone who disagrees is making a house rule. To me, the composite-longbows-are-longbows position is fully compatible with RAW, so you are the one who is making up a house rule.
Actually you are wrong. As has been pointed out no where in the rules does it say it applies to traits. That is an indisputable fact. The only thing you can really do is say "I think it should include traits" which is not RAW but RAI.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Composite longbows are longbows. It's right there in the name. Same way light crossbows and heavy crossbows are crossbows. Light picks and heavy picks are picks. Would you argue that a feat the let you do x with a pick would apply to neither the heavy or light pick as they are not picks?
None of us know the RAI and different people will have different equally correct interpretations of RAW.
As someone said this only really matters for PFS anyway, which I almost exclusively play. I have never experienced anyone ruling that a comp longbow is not a longbow.
Also saying that composite longbows are treated as longbows for feats and proficiencies is not exlusive and does not mean it is ONLY for feats and proficiencies. It may not be logical and it may be unintuitive but thats the written language and anything else is a (insensicle and probably against the RAI) house rule.
It is undeniable fact that the trait mentions longbows. Since composite longbows ARE longbows, you have not proved anything.
I have proved it, you just don't want to see it. If Composite Longbows and longbows were meant to be the same thing, there would be no need for the line that says the count as a longbow for feats and proficiencies. They could have just said it is a longbow. They didn't, so it's not, just like a light crossbow isn't a heavy crossbow two completely separate weapons, and nothing in the rules changes that. It actually says they're separate here: For purposes of Weapon Proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow.
Bolding mine. It's treated as if it were, which explicitly says it's not.
I suppose the dense comment was a bit unnecessary, my apologies, posting while preterbed will be done with more caution in the future.
Also saying that composite longbows are treated as longbows for feats and proficiencies is not exlusive and does not mean it is ONLY for feats and proficiencies.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You can't just add to the rules because you think it should. I mean just because Slashing Grace says 1-handed Slashing, that doesn't mean ONLY 1-handed Slashing, I think I'm going to add Siege Weapons in there too. So Slashing Grace works with Siege Weapons because the rules can't really mean ONLY 1-handed Slashing weapons...
Do you see how that just doesn't work?
|
|
I absolutely agree, it does not make sense. Neither does a blanket statement that a Composite Longbow is not a longbow just because something says it is for x. It doesn't even say it is for x and not y, just that it is for x.
This is the advice forum. If you really really want to continue this make a post in the rules forum. I might have time to post there tomorrow afternoon if I see a post there.
And Slashing Grace doesn't say it's not for Siege Weapons, so it must be allowed. It doesn't say a Wizard can't use a d12 for hit points, I'm going to do that too... Do you see what I mean now when I say Pathfinder rules are inclusive? If a rule doesn't say you can, then you can't. The fact that those two things, feats and proficiencies are the only two things specifically called out, those are the ONLY things you can apply it too. You can't just add whatever you want to any rule you want.
If after everything I've already said, you can't see the rules don't work the way you're saying they do, nothing I can say in a new thread is going to change your mind.
All those arguing that this trait sucks because it's worse than precise shot don't realize that due to the feat intensity of Archery many builds will be glad to not have to spend a feat on Precise Shot as this trait covers it's most important application.
All those arguing that this trait sucks because it's worse than precise shot don't realize that due to the feat intensity of Archery many builds will be glad to not have to spend a feat on Precise Shot as this trait covers it's most important application.
I don't think anyone is arguing that at all. This has nothing to do with Precise Shot, and covers nothing that Precise Shot covers. Unless you're talking about Improved Precise Shot, then there is some overlap, but given a choice of a trait that's only good until you get another feat, or a trait that will always be useful, I tend to go for the latter.
The real reason most of us are arguing against this feat, is that by RAW it doesn't apply to Composite Longbows.