I would like to point out to everyone that people saying "ranged combat" means "bow" is like saying "spellcasting" means "Wizard."
....
@ Christopk-K:
If this was a prank post, it wasn't very funny or made people laugh, so on that front it's quite the failure. Which means the odds of it being a prank post is quite silly.Also, I'm not sure if one can gauge a person's skill and system mastery by the number of posts, especially if we want to compare those posts to ones like these, where people will say that my arguments or concepts don't make any sense. Which is fine, I'm not saying I know anything about the game; I'm just saying that post numbers are irrelevant when it can be construed that those posts don't add anything to anyone. AKA Spamming threads with useless jibber-jabber that help nobody.
Sound familiar in this instance?
Well, I'd suggest you take a look at the title of your thread and your first post. To me that looks like click baiting and a rant.
I also do did this a few times but then I don't mind being called out for it ;-)
You used a lot of archery references there so that might explain why you get so many answers including a bow...
I must admit that I didn't take the time to read all 200+ this thread had accumulated to find that there was an actuall topic related to your game hidden behind that opening.
In the end to me it is important not to fall down that Go to hole.
Sound familiar in this instance?
With the stuff I just said above, not really
In the end I also don't want to insult you, so sorry if I did
So, everybody pulled an "Ancient Aliens" on me? Do I have that right? "I'm not saying it's not ranged combat, but it's not ranged combat." That's what you're suggesting when you make that comment, and between everybody else saying my arguments are disingenuous, this really just creates a Pot meet Kettle situation, which is both silly and quite ironic.
But don't worry, since I'm the only pot here, and everybody else is kettles, I'm still the bad guy here, so don't think that just because we argued in a similar manner that I'm not equal to you guys or anything... /sarcasmIn relation to your "grab and go" comment, I disagree to an extent. If the PCs may need certain consumables or items for them to progress onward to the next part of the AP (maybe a Scroll of Raise Dead for a PC death?), then that's what the NPC WBL is for, especially if it's not being spent or given to the PCs in the form of raw gold for them to spend as they see fit, and it can be used to buff monsters, but as you stated, it should only be done when necessary (and by everyone's comments here, it certainly isn't in this situation).
First I am going to address the "grab and go" comment. I agree that from a real life perspective the monsters should use the money. What I am saying is that to stay within a certain CR range monsters have to stay within certain numbers, and they come from the book with those numbers. If I take a monster's treasure value, and use it to buy stuff there are times to boost the monster's CR by 2 and sometimes more, according to what a monster should have according to Paizo.
As an example if I put armor on a monster I can't boost it's AC by 5 or more, and it monsters with a difference in armor of 5 or normally at least 3 CR's apart. The same can be done with attack bonuses, saves, and so on.
Let me know if you get what I mean. Feel free to restate what I said in your own words to be sure we are on the same page.
Edit: I am sure that I can boost overall stats...
That should be "can boost its AC by 5 or more".
Summary:
Some types of ranged combat are feasible. For example, a full-BAB composite longbow specialist with all the usual feats in a game where the GM uses the cover rules correctly and doesn't increase the AC of all monsters.
Some types of ranged combat are not feasible.
I think this is a consensus.
If a guy who claims that all kinds ranged combat are always feasible ever shows up, we can consider that guy soundly defeated.
A few disclaimers:
I am really sick today, and might be misinterpreting what people are saying (happens a lot to me)
I have joked a few times about my arcanist sucking w/ a bow in this thread...It was my way of pointing out some of the logical falicies I was seeing but could not point out the name of (Purposefully goin ridiculous)
End of disclaimer
Are you implying that my 20 year tradition of all characters carry a sling and bullets is pointless?
It simply isn't true that a ranged combat character HAS to use a bow to be effective. Bows are optimal, but other ranged weapons are feasible.
For example, I've seen an awfully powerful dwarf Inquisitor that used a repeating crossbow to deadly effect in a Paizo AP that went from levels 1-14. I've seen a ninja tear through adventures with a shuriken build. I've seen a savage technologist wreck enemies with a switch hitter style using thrown weapons early on, then switching to futuristic pistols at higher levels. (Iron Gods, of course)
It simply isn't true that a ranged combat character HAS to use a bow to be effective. Bows are optimal, but other ranged weapons are feasible.
For example, I've seen an awfully powerful dwarf Inquisitor that used a repeating crossbow to deadly effect in a Paizo AP that went from levels 1-14. I've seen a ninja tear through adventures with a shuriken build. I've seen a savage technologist wreck enemies with a switch hitter style using thrown weapons early on, then switching to futuristic pistols at higher levels. (Iron Gods, of course)
That is not the implication. The implication is that bows are the easiest way to do it, and even when putting equal effort into other ranged weapons they can't keep up, unless you are counting guns.
The idea is also that when people say things like ranged combat is OP, they tend to use archery(bows) as an example, unless of course someone mentions guns.
From what I understand the OP was under the impression that the boardmembers looked at all ways to do ranged combat equally. So I have been trying to let him know if that is what he is arguing against that there is nothing to argue about since that was not the intent of other topics here.
We have also been trying to let him know that bows do very well in games, but its easier to have one topic than to have all of us discussing several different things at once.
PS: I'm not accounting for very specialized builds such as the crossbow archetype for the gunslinger.
In tight quarters where stuff has increased areas of threat and you're not permitted to make attacks, something that has become quite common in the AP I've played, I don't get the opportunity to use my crossbow because of Attacks of Opportunity or Grappling, and I have zero melee options at my disposal (they lost effectiveness by 5th level) to properly contribute to combat when those situations arise.
As for the damage portion, the biggest reason why an Archer would outpace the typical Bolt Ace user is because of Manyshot and other bow-only compatible options that Crossbows cannot access because [reasons], otherwise I'm more SAD than an Archer is, and by mathematical relation should have better ability modifiers to my attacks (and damage).
Seriously, I can't have special ammunition, such as Trip Arrows, Blunt Arrows, etc. because crossbows are overshadowed due to Lord of the Rings. If Crossbows were even given the opportunity to have the same options and abilities as Archers, ammunition or otherwise, they'd find their equal soon enough.
In this case, it can be due to how I'm going about it (which I have to, since crossing my t's and dotting my i's is important, since building it typically wouldn't work). Otherwise, typical switch-hitters only need Power Attack, and maybe Weapon Finesse, and boom, they have melee relevance too. If they can spare 7+ feats for their ranged combat, they can spare one or two more for melee capabilities too, which most ranged characters have bonus feats to help with.
I didn't lose out on feats by multiclassing to a class that gets more bonus feats than the Bolt Ace ever does, that's silly.
As I've stated prior, people who did this sort of thing was basically telling others they were playing the game wrong, were having badwrongfun, and all that other stuff, and wasn't acceptable on these boards. I use the term "wasn't," because apparently that isn't applying here since I'm "insulting" the sacred cow that is Archery/Ranged Combat.
I disagree with melee having more palatable options than ranged. While it's true that melee have more weapons to choose from, you don't need much of anything specific unless you have a build (i.e. reach tripping) that requires it for proper function, and in a lot of cases those builds take more or require other stuff instead of simply going Power Attack and smashing the baddies' faces in due to their convolution. I suppose you can say that Crossbows are more convoluted than Bows, but that shouldn't be an excuse for an option to outright suck, which is what everybody is suggesting right now.
And unless you're a full spellcaster, or some special Gish that relies on increased spell effectiveness (like Magi), you don't particularly need metamagic feats, which means that spellcasters not immediately referencing Wizards doesn't connect with the logic that's being presented to why ranged combat immediately references Bows.
Deighton Thrane linked me the rules portion. I'll be having quite the talk with the GM next session about this...
My ranged combat will be comparable to my melee options, if we're going by-the-numbers. Especially since I can apply Rapid Shot (extra attack at -2) to my melee capabilities, and each attack does get Sneak Attack if flanking (which my ranged attacks wouldn't).
The reason why I"m "switch-hitting" is because I've been in numerous situations where I've had stuff right in my face, I've been grappled and couldn't properly counter, and so on; with this method, it won't matter if they're in my face or if I get grappled, I'll still be able to equally contribute to defeating the encounter.
Weapon Focus being disallowed was done to permit characters to build more diversely instead of taking these de facto feats all the time, and those who were built with it were compensated for that. It's the same reason why Power Attack was permitted to all characters that met the requirements, and why Point Blank Shot was given to everyone for free as well, since those are feats that everyone takes.
Yes, bows are good. I just fail to see how one weapon being good means an entire style of combat is good. All one weapon being awesome means is that one weapon being awesome. It's like saying because you saw somebody at a murder scene that everybody who is at the murder scene is the murderer.
Ogres weren't 6 AC above their expected CR, only the boss (who isn't an ogre) may have been, and even that's not definitive because I don't know what CR the boss is.
People use it in save-or-suck builds to counter lucky/good rolls, and instead rely more on the "probability of averages" for forcing numerous dice rolls. It's much less likely to roll good on both rolls than on one roll. As for the Rapid Shot, I did give him a proper thanks...
Yes, they will garner different responses because apparently Bows are 100% of ranged combat, which is both silly, and just as preposterous as expecting an archer to never ever be in a compromising position.
I didn't see the throwing shield part until after my post. Even if you did post it, the fact that it's not a bow means it's junk and therefore not ranged combat.
And yes, a character should be able to do his schtick in most any situation presented to him before you can call that mode of combat "viable." Which means that yes, ranged combat has less hurdles to cross, and has easier means to counter it, but that's primarily because other modes of combat (melee and spellcasting) have less agnostic choices to shore up their weaknesses.
That's because that's talking about two separate instances of facing a given enemy. That being said, there is most likely more than one enemy in an encounter, you know. I know I didn't specify that to be the case, but enemies can be both far away and threatening me simultaneously if both built right or in multiple positions, indicating multiple foes.
Crossbows, Bows, and other ranged weapons use very similar rules, so while that comparison is understandable, it's like saying I'm a Wizard when I cast PFE, when I may just be a Cleric.
As for the hole, it's too late for that. I've fallen down that hole when I went to this forum, and most recently, when I made this thread. Unless the moderators want to delete this thread (which I wouldn't mind them doing at this point), I kind of can't renege my choice here.
Also, your apology is accepted.
Try actually reading the thread. A crossbow is a less optimal choice, that doesn't mean it isn't feasible.
Also not-bows is not the entirety of range combat. If bows are feasible then range combat is feasible
How can Ranged Combat be feasible? Well using a bow helps. Keyword is HELP. You need class features to make the the other options adequate. Composite Bows are feasible with just feats, stats, and BAB.
It answers your question before you move the goal post to "How can throwing pillows be feasible?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol the idea has never been that one weapon make the entire style of combat good.
Yeah, I know that sometimes they say "ranged combat" when they only referred to 2 weapons.
Some people on this topic flat out dismissed non-bows, and there have been a few times in other posts which had people complaining about bows being the only good option.
As an aside I've made good throwing weapons builds, but it took more of an investment, and most of the time you can invest more in non-bow option and still be behind them. That is not to say the non-bow option isn't viable, but it requires more research to find the right feats, and put the builds together if you want bow-like results.
It's kind of annoying to be honest. I've always wanted a dagger throwing character, but even with the distance enhancement I'd be closer to huge and bigger monsters than I care to be the last time I looked into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, I can't have special ammunition, such as Trip Arrows, Blunt Arrows, etc. because crossbows are overshadowed due to Lord of the Rings. If Crossbows were even given the opportunity to have the same options and abilities as Archers, ammunition or otherwise, they'd find their equal soon enough.
Darksol, you need to let this go. Crossbows were always weaker than bows since long before the LotR movies. Back in 1e, bows had a 2/1 firing rate (shots/round) while heavy crossbows were 1/2. Crossbows should be slower and the game has reflected that appropriately.
That doesn't mean that 3e (and thus PF) didn't drop a ball here - crossbows, if you ask me, should allow for players to buy them rated for higher strength and longbows should probably require an exotic weapon feat for the exact same reason the bastard sword needs it to use one-handed - without it, the weapons dominate short bows in nearly all ways. That extra feat for proficiency would have balanced nicely with the extra feat for Rapid Reload and we'd really be in the business of parity.
As an aside I've made good throwing weapons builds, but it took more of an investment, and most of the time you can invest more in non-bow option and still be behind them. That is not to say the non-bow option isn't viable, but it requires more research to find the right feats, and put the builds together if you want bow-like results.
It's kind of annoying to be honest. I've always wanted a dagger throwing character, but even with the distance enhancement I'd be closer to huge and bigger monsters than I care to be the last time I looked into it.
Yep, I've made viable crossbow, throwing [cards], throwing [improvised] and sling/slingstaff builds. As I said before, non-bow ranged requires 'more investment for less payoff' but I wouldn't call them "bad"
For throwing, javelin rules the range arms-race. An Amentum or spear-thrower bumps range up to ranged weapon levels. If you count slings/slingstaff as throwing, Arc Slinger allows for an impressive 160' with no ranged penalty.
Dagger is in a rough place though, falling behind even improvised weapons builds in range. My suggestion would be Far Strike Monk: It has a Ki option to add +20' to range and has a Shot on the Run feature to allow moving away from your foe and firing multiple missile while doing so. And they have Parting Shot as an bonus feat ;).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also possible for a rogue (or ninja) to make use of the false opening feat with a thrown dagger to deal sneak attack damage. A level in flying blade swashbuckler would help. It's effectively a melee build though.
Anyone else find the options discussed in this thread more interesting than the fight with darksol?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol the Painbringer, if you had asked, "Why doesn't ranged combat work for a Bolt Ace?" in the first place, then this thread would not be so cluttered with comments extolling the virtues of the longbow.
Yes, it's Rise of the Runelords, and yes, I believe the GM is tacking on the Advanced template on regular creatures (and possibly even adding creatures to fights) to account for having a 5th party member.
Adding a 5th party member makes a party 25% stronger. The Advanced template raises the CR by 1 and makes the enemy 41% stronger. Your GM is giving you an extra-tough setting.
Also, since the party seems short on wealth for their level, I wonder whether the GM forgot to increaae the treasure by 25% to account for the 5th party member. However, the first half of Rise of the Runelords runs short on treasure, regardless.
I played the D&D 3.5 version of Rise of the Runelords, with enemies adapted to Pathfinder rules via fan-made stat blocks from d20pfsrd.com. It was the battle that Darksol the Painbringer has been complaining about that inspired my first posting to this forum: What to do with a Gnome Ranger Monk? That gnome was a switch-hitter archer forced to fight on the frontline because the fighter who used to hold that position had died on a side quest and been replaced with a druid who cast spells at range.
The ogres are 2 CR above their standard AC (19 vs 23, they did have Fighter levels after all), synonymous with the Advanced template, and the boss was buffed with a Shield spell, which grants +4 AC, not including any Advanced template they may have, which may have boosted it even more. A first level spell skyrocketing their AC doesn't mean that they are 7 CR beyond their projected AC, it means they're (self)buffed and should be taken much more seriously than if they weren't ...
Giving the boss ogre either a +4 shield bonus illegally or an extra level in a spellcasting class would raise the CR by another +1 beyond the +1 from the Advanced template, making him a CR 12 opponent. That boss ogre was a barbarian in the 3.5 version and I doubt that changed. He cannot cast Shield on himself. Nor can his ogre sorceress ally cast it on him, because Shield is a personal spell.
Mage Armor can be cast on others because it does not stack with the armor bonus that most characters have, giving only an effective +1 or +2 to 1st-level armor, not the full +4. Shield, in contrast, gives a shield bonus and most characters lack a shield bonus already, so it is more powerful. Hence, it was made personal and short-lasting. In additon, ogres' weakness is that they have low AC and saves. Correcting that weakness makes an ogre a lot stronger.
As for the ogres ambushing the party in the hallways of Fort Rannick, ogres are supposed to be too stupid to plan an ambush. The ogre barbarians and ogre fighters were disciplined in their attack on the fort, and then they lost discipline and spent their days in Fort Rannick in gluttony instead. Add in the misinterpreted cover rules, and Darksol's party was in a world of hurt more than the module intended. On the other hand, if the party rushed in foolishly so that they themselves rather than a planned ambush surrounded them with ogres, then the party deserves the pain.
Summary: you built a bad build and you blame ranged combat? Interesting logic.
That is not fair. Gauss missed that Darksol's character is a Bolt Ace, a class designed to make crossbow ranged combat good. It was not a bad build. It was an average build hampered by low wealth for the level and enemies buffed beyond their level.
The questions remaining are, how can this Bolt Ace/Slayer character be made to function in situations that do not favor crossbow combat? And how can the crossbow be most effective?
Darksol the Painbringer, the problem is not that the longbow is the only feasible ranged option. The problem is that your Bolt Ace's feats are the feats for a longbow archer with Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery tacked on as a feat tax to make your crossbow as fast as a longbow. Your Bolt Ace could have instead learned only the feats that favor the crossbow and freed up feats for non-ranged options. Then the Bolt Ace multiclassed to 3 levels of Slayer, a class that slowly builds up to good ranged attacks in 7 levels. Finally, the Bolt Ace spent two feats, Weapon Finesse and Empty Quiver Style, and plans to spend two more feats to be able to bash people in the face with a crossbow for 1d8+7 rather than shooting them (and provoking) for 1d10+13.
I am not a Bolt Ace expert; I have never seen one played. However, my wife plays a Gunslinger(experimental) 12/Rogue 2 character in my Iron Gods campaign and used her system mastery to make her gunslinger an excellent low-damage battlefield controller. In addition, the PCs recruited a teenage NPC into the party and I decided she would be a gunslinging bloodrager. I tweaked her homebrew gunslinging archetype until it functions like a historic gun-and-cutlass buccaneer and I learned a lot about slow-firing ranged combat. I have mentioned this build in other threads, and other players adhered to the cult of the longbow and dismissed slow-firing ranged combat as nonsense, but it does work.
Nevertheless, Darksol chose rapid-firing ranged combat, so that's water over the dam.
Okay, Weapon Finesse does make sense, but a backup weapon uses much fewer feats than Empty Quiver Style. The other feats can be spent on ways to get out of the threatened squares of ogres and giants. I recommend Dodge and Mobility and several potions of Spider Climb or Fly. While at the potion shop (beg your GM to put a potion shop in Turtleback Ferry), also buy some potions of Cat's Grace. Next, get a keen enchantment on that crossbow. The high regular AC of buffed opponents does not matter if the Bolt Ace has the grit to make touch attacks with his crossbow.
Also Bolt ace doesn't lose pistol whip, so empty quiver style is redundant. I'd ask about retraining that. Melee is already a last resort, and pistol whip is 1d10 rather than 1d8, plus a chance to knock the target down
Unfortunately, the PDT included other weapons, which the claim of "use a bow" only serves to better the bows, and not the other ranged weapons that are listed, which means the original goal post (ranged combat) doesn't need to be moved, it just needs to be actually adhered to in its entirety, instead of handwaved by having one option be workable.
By that logic, Fighters and other Martials should never ever be considered as a character choice over Wizards and other full spellcasters because Caster/Martial Disparity. It's both a ridiculous expectation and a silly argument that nobody should take seriously.
Interesting note on the 1st half of the book being lighter on treasure than usual, that does help alleviate my concerns regarding combat effectiveness.
We didn't fight any Ogre boss yet in the keep, and the Shield bonus was from the other boss we faced prior (and was able to escape via Dimension Door, so Shield spells are possible), whom we will be facing a second battle against without a lot of our buffs, and probably with the Ogre boss and minions backing them up. At this point, if a TPK happens (which I suspect it will due to the power level of the things we've fought thus far, and having such low resources remaining), I'll look forward to making a different kind of character for another AP or campaign; preferably one that doesn't rely on dealing damage to be effective. (Maybe the Aid Another support monkey I've been thinking of.)
The math would be 1D8+13 with Deadly Aim taken for consideration, which means it's not much different between a Longsword and a Bastard Sword damage-wise.
Also, the problem with using a different back-up weapon is that it loses its effectiveness as the levels progress, and I have no way to make that backup weapon just as effective as my main weapon unless I go this route. The dagger I had at level 2 that finished off the second boss of the entire AP was invaluable, but at this level it won't be nearly as effective without further investment.
Keen cannot be applied to non-melee weapons, which means I have to go the Improved Critical route (though I planned to at some point anyway, so it's not like it's a bad thing). The good news is that if I go the Improved Critical route, it applies to both melee and ranged attacks I make, so that's always nice.
The reason why I didn't use any in this fight was because I was down to 1 grit point, and we have the boss fight coming up ahead (possibly even next), and I need all the grit I can get to survive it.
Also, CMB doesn't scale worth a damn, which means knocking an enemy down is slim to none.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Belt of Mighty Hurling
My only issue with using this for a build is that it only comes together at 6th if I spend 88% of all my wealth into it... before that, it's worse than useless in ranged combat.
CMB scales fine vs other humanoid enemies, which is a significant chunk of BBEG in most modules and adventure paths. Itl be less useful against things like giants, solidly useful against NPC's with class levels etc. Your choice to burn a feat on empty quiver to shore up a last ditch combat tactic has an opportunity cost on making your primary combat tactic worthwhile, you've created a redundancy in the character that has a net cost of 1 feat. In addition, it isn't a trip check, its a raw CMB vs CMD, so all those extra legs don't interfere with knocking them prone.
You basically burned a feat for a situation a five foot step usually solves, and a class feature provides a solution to in situations where a five foot step wont.
Edit: TL/DR Empty quiver style is better spent as agile maneuvers, and even better spent as something that helps you crossbow better.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm a bit confused. I haven't read every single post, but is your qualm "ranged combat isn't feasible" or "maybe bows are, but why aren't other options?" Or rather, is it "melee is straightforward and flexible, why isn't ranged?"
It's the second option.
To be fair though, the third one isn't mutually exclusive to the other two as far as a qualm is concerned, though.
I'm a bit confused. I haven't read every single post, but is your qualm "ranged combat isn't feasible" or "maybe bows are, but why aren't other options?" Or rather, is it "melee is straightforward and flexible, why isn't ranged?"
Yes...
True. But until then, if you're focusing on TWF stuff, you can just pretend to be a melee character for a few levels - for the CON-based build. For a build that has both high DEX and STR, well... you're gonna be fine.
Oh I understand, I just hate having an idea [str ranged combat] and then ignoring it for 1/3rd my levels. Add to that, if you're going a ranged route then you're not really going to have room for non-ranged feats at start: point blank-precise-2 weapon and you're at 5th already and if you have bonus feats, you'll most likely head for startoss which will eat them quickly. Oh and you wanted to add Artful Dodge too...
So for a bunch of levels, you aren't touching most of your feats like a slightly better warrior. ;P
It depends on what the 5th party member brings to the table. And considering it's a Paladin with 13 Lay On Hands that heal for more than 1/4 his HP per use, he's pretty hard to kill, and does comparable damage to me with Smite rolling. ...
Sure, the paladin pulls his weight against the increased CR, but all players are supposed to pull their weight. And if the treasure was not increased, everyone has only 80% individual Wealth by Level.
We didn't fight any Ogre boss yet in the keep, and the Shield bonus was from the other boss we faced prior (and was able to escape via Dimension Door, so Shield spells are possible), whom we will be facing a second battle against without a lot of our buffs, and probably with the Ogre boss and minions backing them up. At this point, if a TPK happens ...
Okay, I heard that the sisters Xanesha from The Skinsaw Murders and Lucretia from the Hook Mountain Massacre had their classes swapped in the Pathfider version of RotR, so perhaps that was the boss. The sorceress one had a ridiculously high AC. The D&D 3.5 sorceress Xanesha was infamous for TPKs.
In my Hook Mountain Massacre, our party did have to rest. Fortunately, my gnome ranger/monk found a safe hiding spot in the forest with his maxed out Survival skill to camp overnight.
The math would be 1D8+13 with Deadly Aim taken for consideration, which means it's not much different between a Longsword and a Bastard Sword damage-wise.
I checked the fine print on Empty Quiver Flexibility and Deadly Aim would work for melee. I had not expected that.
But the Deft Shootist Deed feat would be simpler, assuming that the resulting deed is switched from firearm to crossbow like the other Bolt Ace deeds.
Also, the problem with using a different back-up weapon is that it loses its effectiveness as the levels progress, and I have no way to make that backup weapon just as effective as my main weapon unless I go this route. The dagger I had at level 2 that finished off the second boss of the entire AP was invaluable, but at this level it won't be nearly as effective without further investment.
A martial character does not have to be great with his backup weapon. It is only a backup.
Keen cannot be applied to non-melee weapons, which means I have to go the Improved Critical route (though I planned to at some point anyway, so it's not like it's a bad thing). The good news is that if I go the Improved Critical route, it applies to both melee and ranged attacks I make, so that's always nice.
Checking in Ultimate Equipment, both the keen enchantment and the Keen Edge spell can be applied to ranged weapons, provided the ammunition is slashing or piercing. If the GM sticks to outdated versions of keen, then either enchant 50 bolts with keen or use Bracers of Falcon’s Aim.
EDIT: Okay, keen has a tiny "melee" in its text that I missed. But the Keen Edge spell and Bracers of Falcon’s Aim work.One idle thought is that if your Bolt Ace had the 7th-level Targeting deed, he could shoot ogre hooks out of the hands of the ogres and another player could steal them. Ordinarily ogres can't be disarmed because of their high CMD, but targeting requires only a hit. Unarmed ogres are less dangerous.
In the theoretical golf course battlefield that every ranged character participates in, yes, several feats are wasted, because I'd have no reason to utilize those feats.
In tight quarters where stuff has increased areas of threat and you're not permitted to make attacks, something that has become quite common in the AP I've played, I don't get the opportunity to use my crossbow because of Attacks of Opportunity or Grappling, and I have zero melee options at my disposal (they lost effectiveness by 5th level) to properly contribute to combat when those situations arise.As for the damage portion, the biggest reason why an Archer would outpace the typical Bolt Ace user is because of Manyshot and other bow-only compatible options that Crossbows cannot access because [reasons], otherwise I'm more SAD than an Archer is, and by mathematical relation should have better ability modifiers to my attacks (and damage).
Seriously, I can't have special ammunition, such as Trip Arrows, Blunt Arrows, etc. because crossbows are overshadowed due to Lord of the Rings. If Crossbows were even given the opportunity to have the same options and abilities as Archers, ammunition or otherwise, they'd find their equal soon enough.
In this case, it can be due to how I'm going about it (which I have to, since crossing my t's and dotting my i's is important, since building it typically wouldn't work). Otherwise, typical switch-hitters only need Power Attack, and maybe Weapon Finesse, and boom, they have melee relevance too. If they can spare 7+ feats for their ranged combat, they can spare one or two more for melee capabilities too, which most ranged characters have bonus feats to help with.
I didn't lose out on feats by multiclassing to a class that gets more bonus feats than the Bolt Ace ever does, that's silly.
Switch hitters never have relevance.
1) You do not need to switch hit when threatened. You need Point Blank Master, an easy feat to acquire if you had if you had gone for a Bow vs a Crossbow.
Even without PBM, it is easy to avoid those AoOs. Have cover behind an ally, no AoO. Take a 5' step.
2) As for feats, you are wasting several feats to build yourself into a switch hitter. Use them to buff your AC to the point where you don't care about AoOs.
Summary: You are choosing an option that is much more difficult to get to work (crossbows), wasting feats on a useless option (switch hitter), multiclassing when you shouldn't and your GM is screwing you by removing Weapon Focus while at the same time as raising their AC beyond the norm.
This is not a problem with ranged combat, it is a problem with your and your GM's choices.
P.S. We are not telling you crossbows are bad-wrong-fun. We are telling you there is not a problem with ranged combat, which is your assertion. If you had said 'why is crossbow ranged combat bad' we would be having a different discussion. Your set up the Crossbow vs Bow discussion with your title and build choices.
5 levels of bolt ace adds his dex.
Deft Shootist and other feat-based deeds do not work with Bolt Ace features, since per RAW, only the listed deeds work with crossbows in place of firearms, and not every other instance. My guess is that this was a "balancing point" of Bolt Aces against standard Gunslingers, but it's certainly not overpowered to allow it to work with crossbows. I wouldn't expect my GM to allow me to take the deed with the above information in mind, however, so there's that.
I will need to double-check with the GM and see if, since we disallowed the Focus feats, that Specialization feats are likewise disallowed (and have the same non-requirement that Focus feats have), because this would probably be the biggest oversight to my build options thus far, and would give me an option to retrain feats as needed.
Also, Keen enchantment from the Ultimate Equipment PRD:
This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
So, no Keen Crossbows. It says right there that Keen is for melee weapons only, and Archives has identical wording. Crossbows aren't melee weapons unless you have appropriate feats, and even then it wouldn't be applicable unless the person enhancing the weapon has the proper feats.
Keen Edges spell works, ironically enough, and I had no idea that it was a 10 minute/level spell duration, which is useful when I decide to make a buff character. Unfortunately, our Wizard took Transmutation as an opposed school, so the odds of having that spell cast on me is pretty damn slim if at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about Versatile design (bow) on the crossbow? Wouldn't that make it count as a bow for Manyshot?
Switch hitters never have relevance.
1) You do not need melee to shoot while threatened. You need Point Blank Master, an easy feat to acquire if you had if you had gone for a Bow vs a Crossbow.
Even without PBM, it is easy to avoid those AoOs. Have cover behind an ally, no AoO. Take a 5' step.
2) As for feats, you are wasting several feats to build yourself into a switch hitter. Use them to buff your AC to the point where you don't care about AoOs.
Summary: You are choosing an option that is much more difficult to get to work (crossbows), wasting feats on a useless option (switch hitter), multiclassing when you shouldn't and your GM is screwing you by removing Weapon Focus while at the same time as raising their AC beyond the norm.
This is not a problem with ranged combat, it is a problem with your and your GM's choices.P.S. We are not telling you crossbows are bad-wrong-fun. We are telling you there is not a problem with ranged combat, which is your assertion. If you had said 'why is crossbow ranged combat bad' we would be having a different discussion. Your set up the Crossbow vs Bow discussion with your title and build choices.
I disagree. For my particular build, switch-hitting means the difference between flanking bonuses and sneak attack in the event I'm forced into melee, both of which are valuable DPR boosters to get me back into ranged combat faster. And it has happened numerous times in this campaign; this isn't just a one time instance for me to consider these feats (though this recent battle was basically the straw that broke the camel's back in reaffirming my choices).
Point Blank Master is blocked by Weapon Specialization, which is only available to 4th level Fighters (and classes that count as having Fighter levels or other shenanigans), which means it's not as widespread as you claim. Bolt Aces have neither of these subjects, and when I asked for advice prior to building this character, I was told that PBM before the mid levels isn't a major problem, so I can do without trying to rush PBM. But, here we are, having several fights where I'm forced into melee and unable to shoot because of threatening or other restrictions (grappled). And if I get disarmed (which surprisingly hasn't happened yet), I'm outright screwed.
The cover rules weren't fully understood or enforced properly by the GM, meaning cover wasn't an option (and I plan to rectify this problem ASAP). 5 foot step, while it was useful in some scenarios, wasn't helpful against enemies with reach, or in tight quarter areas (10 feet or less in width or length), and doesn't work around hard corners.
I also question how I can buff my AC with feats for it to be a significant difference. Outside of Dodge and Mobility (Armor and Shield Focus aren't permitted either), and maybe Armor of the Pit via Tiefling (which I can't get), there really isn't too much to add to my AC through feats. Even so, the enemies were able to occasionally hit AC 30 (which is what our tanks are at when they're on the defensive), and I"m 5 AC less than that as of right now.
Multiclassing a Bolt Ace after you hit 5th level is probably the smartest thing to do because you have dead features beyond 5th level. I had no reason to stay in Bolt Ace when other classes gave me much more in compensation versus straight Bolt Ace. I have more feats now than if I went straight Bolt Ace, better Fort and Ref saves, accuracy-boosting features, etc. If I went straight Slayer or some other class, the Crossbow wouldn't even be effective whatsoever.
How about Versatile design (bow) on the crossbow? Wouldn't that make it count as a bow for Manyshot?Unfortunately not. That only makes it part of the fighter weapon group (bow). It does not make it a bow for feats or anything else.
As Jurassic Pratt says, it's unclear if that's even possible. There's a lot of things Versatile Design permits (such as granting UCMonks and Brawlers proficiency with any Monk/Close-grouped weapon that isn't actually Monk/Close-grouped, and other features related to those weapon groups), and it's unclear if the intent of this is to work with feats as well as weapon groups.
But, it's probably the closest thing to "Crossbows can Manyshot" that we're going to get as of right now, so I'll give you props for the creativity. (If I'm lucky, I'll pitch the idea to the GM and see if he will let me do it.)
|
I disagree. For my particular build, switch-hitting means the difference between flanking bonuses and sneak attack in the event I'm forced into melee, both of which are valuable DPR boosters to get me back into ranged combat faster.
Wearing a cestus on one hand can grant flanking/sneak attack to allies just as well as those feats. It's a free action to change your grip on your weapon, so every turn after you shoot you just take one hand off your crossbow and voila, you now threaten in melee.
I disagree. For my particular build, switch-hitting means the difference between flanking bonuses and sneak attack in the event I'm forced into melee, both of which are valuable DPR boosters to get me back into ranged combat faster.Wearing a cestus on one hand can grant flanking/sneak attack to allies just as well as those feats. It's a free action to change your grip on your weapon, so every turn after you shoot you just take one hand off your crossbow and voila, you now threaten in melee.
My cestus deals 1D4 damage, akin to the dagger I used (and occasionally threw) at 2nd level.
Compared to dealing 1D8+7 (or +13 with Deadly Aim going), that's a ridiculous amount of damage being lost there, and 1D4 isn't going to cut it at these higher levels. And that's not including Point Blank or Rapid Shot shenanigans applying to my melee options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the description you gave it seemed to be more about helping your allies when you got caught rather than you being able to do alot of damage yourself in melee. And once your ally is on top of them, it's fairly easy for you to get away.
It seems like you're trying to build a character that can do both melee and ranged effectively rather than specializing. Something which Pathfinder very much does not support well as a system.
Switch hitters never have relevance.
1) You do not need melee to shoot while threatened. You need Point Blank Master, an easy feat to acquire if you had if you had gone for a Bow vs a Crossbow.
Even without PBM, it is easy to avoid those AoOs. Have cover behind an ally, no AoO. Take a 5' step.
2) As for feats, you are wasting several feats to build yourself into a switch hitter. Use them to buff your AC to the point where you don't care about AoOs.
Summary: You are choosing an option that is much more difficult to get to work (crossbows), wasting feats on a useless option (switch hitter), multiclassing when you shouldn't and your GM is screwing you by removing Weapon Focus while at the same time as raising their AC beyond the norm.
This is not a problem with ranged combat, it is a problem with your and your GM's choices.P.S. We are not telling you crossbows are bad-wrong-fun. We are telling you there is not a problem with ranged combat, which is your assertion. If you had said 'why is crossbow ranged combat bad' we would be having a different discussion. Your set up the Crossbow vs Bow discussion with your title and build choices.
I disagree. For my particular build, switch-hitting means the difference between flanking bonuses and sneak attack in the event I'm forced into melee, both of which are valuable DPR boosters to get me back into ranged combat faster. And it has happened numerous times in this campaign; this isn't just a one time instance for me to consider these feats (though this recent battle was basically the straw that broke the camel's back in reaffirming my choices).
Point Blank Master is blocked by Weapon Specialization, which is only available to 4th level Fighters (and classes that count as having Fighter levels or other shenanigans), which means it's not as widespread as you claim. Bolt Aces have neither of these subjects, and when I asked for advice prior to building this character, I was told that PBM before the mid levels isn't a major...
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Rangers and Slayers also qualify for Point Blank Master if using bows.
You said you might be grappled. That is just poor group design.
Grapple is the easiest thing to deal with.
1) Full ranks in escape artist.
2) Spellcaster with Liberating Command. Immediate action to cast, grants immediate action attempt to escape artist out of the grapple with a bonus of double caster level (+16 at your level).
Disarm is easy to deal with, lock the weapon (Locking Gauntlet). Again, no need for switch hitting.
A 5' step will put you behind your ally thus granting you cover. Proper battlefield positioning and delayed actions should make it so you never have to take an AoO for shooting while in melee.
Again, the point to all this is that your assertion that ranged combat is not feasible is just flat out wrong. Your particular build and situation is at fault, not ranged combat.
P.S. Since your GM seems so fond of houseruling, you might want to ask him to houserule Snap Shot so you can benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.
Additionally, you may want to talk to some of your teammates about getting teamwork feats with you.
Both sets of feats are better options than switch hitting.
|
|
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Agree that switch hitting is bad, but your reasons are mostly wrong as he's using empty quiver style.
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.Agree that switch hitting is bad, but your reasons are mostly wrong as he's using empty quiver style.
Good point, that only deals with the cost element. The other points remain.
How about Versatile design (bow) on the crossbow? Wouldn't that make it count as a bow for Manyshot?Unfortunately not. That only makes it part of the fighter weapon group (bow). It does not make it a bow for feats or anything else.
The ONLY place I know of a definition of 'bow' is that weapon group. As such, what else is the feat looking at to determine if it's a bow or not?
Where do I look to find out if something is a polearm? An axe? A thrown weapon? A flail? And if you look at the polearm group to figure out if a Polearm Master's Steadfast Pike works on a weapon, then what is the difference with multishot?
PS: This an issue I've have with far strike monk and their getting all thrown weapon proficiency and/or thrown weapon flurry. Is it all weapons with a range that aren't ranged weapons or weapons from the fighter group?
As Jurassic Pratt says, it's unclear if that's even possible. There's a lot of things Versatile Design permits (such as granting UCMonks and Brawlers proficiency with any Monk/Close-grouped weapon that isn't actually Monk/Close-grouped, and other features related to those weapon groups), and it's unclear if the intent of this is to work with feats as well as weapon groups.
But, it's probably the closest thing to "Crossbows can Manyshot" that we're going to get as of right now, so I'll give you props for the creativity. (If I'm lucky, I'll pitch the idea to the GM and see if he will let me do it.)
I know it's up in the air, but it's worth asking how your DM rules it. The worst that can happen is that he doesn't allow it. Honestly, there is a LOT of places where it's unclear if a rule is talking about the weapon group or not so it a lot need cleared up: This is especially true of 3.5 legacy items like the multishot feat, as the newer rules tend to add in things like 'polearm group' instead of just saying 'polearm'.
Everything I said.
You have an opinion on ranged despite a 6th level fighter archer being able to dish out over 200 points of damage per round without crits. Your opinion is right to you despite the numbers, but it's trolling at this point to me.
There is some that think that dex to damage with crossbows trump a longbow with strength to damage that has manyshot.
Assumptions:
Str: 14, Dex 22 (16+2race+2lvl+2enh), Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
vs
Str: 12, Dex 22 (16+2race+2lvl+2enh), Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 7
The crossbowman swaps strength for wis in order to gain more grit. Dumping the Strength into Dexterity will not produce a higher Dexterity value at level 8 unless it is dropped to 8 (at which point carrying capacity becomes an issue).
Feat count:
Crossbow 7: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload, Crossbow Mastery, Weapon Focus, Deadly Aim
Bow 7: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Weapon Focus, Deadly Aim, Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot
Atk: +8bab, +1wf, +2enh, +6dex, +1pbs^, -2rs^, -3da^
Dam bow: 1d8 (4.5), +2str, +2enh, +1pbs^, +6da^
Dam xbow: 1d10 (5.5), +6dex, +2enh, +1pbs^, +6da^
^ is optional
vs AC21
Full: 17*2/12 (9.5): 2(0.85(9.5))+0.85(9.5)(0.05)(2) + 0.60(9.5)+0.60(9.5)(0.05)(2) = 16.9575 + 11.97 = 28.9275
Full w/DA 14*2/9 (15.5da): 2(0.70(15.5))+0.70(15.5)(0.05)(2) + 0.45(15.5)+0.45(15.5)(0.05)(2) = 22.785 + 7.6725 = 30.4575
RS 15*2/15/10 (9.5): 3(0.75(9.5))+2(0.75(9.5)(0.05)(2)) + 0.50(9.5)+0.50(9.5)(0.05)(2) = 22.8 + 5.225 = 28.025
RS w/DA 12*2/12/7 (15.5da): 3(0.60(15.5))+2(0.60(15.5)(0.05)(2)) + 0.35(15.5)+0.35(15.5)(0.05)(2) = 29.76 + 5.9675 = 35.7275
Full 17/12 (13.5): 0.85(13.5)+0.85(13.5)(0.10) + 0.60(13.5)+0.60(13.5)(0.10) = 12.6225 + 8.91 = 21.5325
Full w/DA 14/9 (19.5da): 0.70(19.5)+0.70(19.5)(0.10) + 0.45(19.5)+0.45(19.5)(0.10) = 15.015 + 9.6525 = 24.6675
RS 15/15/10 (13.5): 2*0.75(13.5)+2*0.75(13.5)(0.10) + 0.50(13.5)+0.50(13.5)(0.10) = 22.275 + 7.425 = 29.7
RS w/DA 12/12/7 (19.5da): 2*0.60(19.5)+2*0.60(19.5)(0.10) + 0.35(19.5)+0.35(19.5)(0.10) = 25.74 + 7.5075 = 33.2475
Archer, even with the Bolt Ace's dex to damage, does more damage than a Bolt Ace using a heavy crossbow except for Rapid Shot w/o Deadly Aim.
PBS was not factored in, but due to manyshot PBS favors the archer.
Also, special abilities such as Sneak Attack, Weapon Training, Studied Target, etc were not factored in. As with PBS, they mostly favor the archer with his greater number of arrows (except for Sneak Attack which is a wash).
Haste was also not factored in, that should favor the Crossbowman and balance out the numbers or give a slight advantage to the Crossbowman.
By level 8 the Bolt Ace Crossbowman does not have Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot (even with 3 levels in another class), the Archer can do one of those depending on the class. (Ranger, Slayer, Zen Archer Monk, Fighter, and Warpriest are just a shortlist that can select one of those two feats, there are probably more ways to get one of them.)
Because of this there is a good chance the Crossbowman's targets will be gaining a +4 cover bonus to AC thus reducing his damage even further.
Of course, that can be mitigated by a higher AC and not caring if you take AoOs.
If you go with a switch hitter version you lose a significant amount of damage.
In short, Bolt Ace CAN work, but you have to work hard to position yourself correctly and have a lot of teamwork. The lack of Point Blank Shot or Improved Precise Shot until significantly later in life (level 11 for Bolt Ace 5/ SlayerX) will cause a lot of problems.
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Rangers and Slayers also qualify for Point Blank Master if using bows.
You said you might be grappled. That is just poor group design.
Grapple is the easiest thing to deal with.
1) Full ranks in escape artist.
2) Spellcaster with Liberating Command. Immediate action to cast, grants immediate action attempt to escape artist out of the grapple with a bonus of double caster level (+16 at your level).Disarm is easy to deal with, lock the weapon (Locking Gauntlet). Again, no need for switch hitting.
A 5' step will put you behind your ally thus granting you cover. Proper battlefield positioning and delayed actions should make it so you never have to take an AoO for shooting while in melee.
Again, the point to all this is that your assertion that ranged combat is not feasible is just flat out wrong. Your particular build and situation is at fault, not ranged combat.
P.S. Since your GM seems so fond of houseruling, you might want to ask him to houserule Snap Shot so you can benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.
Additionally, you may want to talk to some of your teammates about getting teamwork feats with you.
Both sets of feats are better options than switch hitting.
As Jurassic Pratt says, when your melee weapon and your ranged weapon are the same weapon, the gold cost subject is largely irrelevant. As for feats, I'm not saying that I won't take PBM or Improved Precise Shot, merely that they aren't available to me at this time, so there's no point in me pining for something that I can't reach for yet; I'll get them when I get them (at this rate, 11th level).
As for spending feats, I'd rather be able to do my schtick in multiple situations than in only one special circumstance, when the stars align and the gods will it so. It's the same reason why people aren't particularly fond of one trick ponies, because in any other situation they are garbage. And as this AP has demonstrated, the majority of fights weren't in areas or circumstances where I could afford to be a one trick pony, meaning it's actually a smarter idea to spend feats on stuff like this than on something that is only effective in apparently rare circumstances. If anything, not adapting to a situation is probably the dumber thing to do here.
It's only a comparative loss of attack bonus (which is false since Empty Quiver Style and Weapon Finesse means I get the same attribute modifier to my attack in either attack style), and damage until I get Empty Quiver Flexibility (which is next level by the way), and by that point it's superior in the right circumstances, or equivalent in every other circumstance. With Empty Quiver Flexibility, all class features and feats that pertain to my ranged weapon also apply to when I use it in combat. This includes: Dex to Damage (not Dex to Attack, hence Weapon Finesse), PBS, Rapid Shot, Clustered Shots, Deadly Aim, and so on, in addition to any melee feats I may take as well (spoiler alert, I won't be).
Yes, they can take that feat at that level. I can nab it too by 11th level (combined with Improved Precise Shot) when I hit 6th level Slayer. It's late, but PBM couldn't be taken at all if I went another route, and I wouldn't be able to take both feats at 6th level, meaning the other feat I'd have to wait until later to snatch anyway.
Also, a minor nitpick, "switch-hitting" refers to switching between melee and ranged weapons to make your attacks. Empty Quiver Style doesn't involve any of that; I use the same weapon to make either attack as I so choose, even mid-full attack (so I can bash a guy in the face, then proceed to shoot another guy at range, all part of the same action). Therefore, it's not "switch-hitting" in the traditional sense, so the idea that it's bad based on it being a traditional "switch-hitter" is, to put it in your perspective, me saying ranged combat is bad because I built badly.
Escape Artist, like Acrobatics, gets outscaled quite easily by monsters' CMD, even if you have absolutely optimal investment into it (and I mean Masterwork Tools, Skill Focus, Pseudo-Skill Focus, Maximum relevant modifier, class skill bonus, max ranks, Competence Item Bonuses, and whatever else you can fit). I'll tell you what, if you can fit a natural Escape Artist check of 60 with a 20th level archer, I'll consider it feasible. Until then, it won't be applicable after 12th level.
Spellcaster casting Liberating Command is a no go situation, since my Wizard has Transmutation as an opposed school, and I doubt he'd be willing to sacrifice double slots to cast it. Though, the spell being an immediate action is certainly nice to consider for future spellcasters.
Locked Gauntlet isn't a bad solution, but I can't keep my hand in one place when I'm required to find and disable traps, as well as constantly reload my crossbow (which takes two open hands to do, by the way). One of many curses for also functioning as a skill monkey for the group. Maybe for another character that doesn't require constant hand usage, but for this one, I can't see the GM (or myself) being able to logically use it.
The cover issue has already been acknowledged as a rules mistake on my part that I'll be bringing to the GM's attention next session, so we can drop this part already.
If the problem is my build, I'm curious how you would envision a "proper" Bolt Ace then. After all, if it's because my build is bad, then surely if you built a Bolt Ace, it would prove more formidable and give archery a run for its money, right? So, let's make it a challenge, with the following parameters:
-Build from Level 1 to Level 8
-Any Core/Featured/Expanded Race of your choice, up to 15 RP.
-Any Crossbow from the Hardcover RPG Rulebook line of sources.
-Must be Bolt Ace Gunslinger for at least 5 of your 8 levels, but may otherwise multiclass as you see fit.
-Weapon Focus is not available and not required for feats, but Point Blank Shot is granted for free (so no feat is required to spend on it).
-Standard WBL rules.
-4 Character Traits, one from each primary category (Combat, Faith, Magic, Social)
-Must be able to deal with close quarters combat solo (through avoidance, nullification, adaptation, etc.) in addition to normally assumed role.
If anyone else wants to give this a shot, feel free to post it. I'm looking forward to see what you (all) can come up with...
In a standard group you can go full ranged attacked and do well. I dont sit at your table so I dont know how you end up in melee so much. Asking Gauss to make a bolt ace that works somewhat like a switch hitter when he is against switch hitting wont really solve much. I'm sure his proper bolt ace is not going to put many resources in close quarters combat, like most other builds that focus mostly on range.
Trying to make switch hitter that keeps up with a bow is not going to
happen.
I think a better idea is to find out what is happening at the table, and then come up with a way to keep you at range for as long as possible.
What are the other classes in the party, and what do they typically do?
Are you typically hanging out in the back, in the middle, or up front with whatever frontliners the party has?
PS: If you already described how this(you getting in melee) happens and I missed it then let me know, and I will go look for the post.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Must be able to deal with close quarters combat solo (through avoidance, nullification, adaptation, etc.) in addition to normally assumed role.
See, this is my sticking point. An archer in a functional party doesn't have to build to be capable in melee. They build to be capable at range and count on their party to help keep it that way.
For medium opponents you have 5 ft steps. For larger opponents you have the party melee guy get up on them while you get away with acrobatics.
Regardless, since you specified any way to deal with melee I'll give it a shot and post back shortly.
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Rangers and Slayers also qualify for Point Blank Master if using bows.
You said you might be grappled. That is just poor group design.
Grapple is the easiest thing to deal with.
1) Full ranks in escape artist.
2) Spellcaster with Liberating Command. Immediate action to cast, grants immediate action attempt to escape artist out of the grapple with a bonus of double caster level (+16 at your level).Disarm is easy to deal with, lock the weapon (Locking Gauntlet). Again, no need for switch hitting.
A 5' step will put you behind your ally thus granting you cover. Proper battlefield positioning and delayed actions should make it so you never have to take an AoO for shooting while in melee.
Again, the point to all this is that your assertion that ranged combat is not feasible is just flat out wrong. Your particular build and situation is at fault, not ranged combat.
P.S. Since your GM seems so fond of houseruling, you might want to ask him to houserule Snap Shot so you can benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.
Additionally, you may want to talk to some of your teammates about getting teamwork feats with you.
Both sets of feats are better options than switch hitting.As Jurassic Pratt says, when your melee weapon and your ranged weapon are the same weapon, the gold cost subject is largely irrelevant. As for feats, I'm not saying that I won't take PBM or Improved Precise Shot, merely that they aren't available to me at this time, so there's no point in me pining for something that I can't reach for yet; I'll get them when I get them (at this rate, 11th level).
As for spending feats, I'd...
Lets identify the problem: You are either shooting through cover OR you are taking an AoO when shooting.
To deal with this you have come up with the 'switch hitter' as a "solution".Instead, you should be seeking ways to fix one of those two problems.
Methods:
Point Blank Master: Avoids AoO, but limited to level 6 for classes that use bows (for rangers/slayers) or level 4+ for weapon specialization (fighters).
Improved Precise Shot: level 6 entry for ranger/slayer/zen archers or late entry at +11bab.
Teamwork feat Friendly Fire Maneuvers: pretty much limited to builds with solo tactics (such as 3 levels of Inquisitor) or classes that can give teamwork feats to others (preferably unlimited use such as Paladin-Holy Tactician).
High AC: Have a ridiculous AC so that you do not care about AoOs. Dodge, Shield Focus (since your GM has houseruled it), and heavier armor (Mithral Breastplate will give you a +1 bonus over your current setup while still counting as light for your abilities) will help.
Proper tactics: Work with your team to provide you clean shots while still getting cover.
In this the crossbowman has (soft) cover from the person with the reach weapon. However, the person with the reach weapon does not have cover from the crossbowman.
As a result, there is no cover bonus to the target's AC while at the same time there is no AoO.
Assume for a moment that your buddy was not in proper position, delay your turn until he is. Shout "cover!" so he knows to get in the correct position, you delay until he is.
Regarding your challenge, race and feats is not the problem, it is trying to get either Point Blank Master or how to avoid the cover penalty that is the problem (IPS or FFM). Melee is not a solution to that, it is a divergence.
I will look to see if I can find an option to get you one of those earlier than level 9 (Fighter4) or level 11 (Ranger6/Slayer6/+11bab).
Currently the only one I can see is Inquisitor3 but that penalizes your BAB by 1.
You really should discuss with your GM that he has added +1 to the AC above what he thinks he has because he removed Weapon Focus. It is a core expectation of the game, almost as much as full-BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assumptions of "de facto" options doesn't mean that other options no longer fall under those assumed paradigms. Are they good options? Probably not. But the fact that they exist and can be taken as options means that they are still considered part of that paradigm.
Deighton Thrane linked me the rules portion. I'll be having quite the talk with the GM next session about this...My ranged combat will be comparable to my melee options, if we're going by-the-numbers. Especially since I can apply Rapid Shot (extra attack at -2) to my melee capabilities, and each attack does get Sneak Attack if flanking (which my ranged attacks wouldn't).
The reason why I"m "switch-hitting" is because I've been in numerous situations where I've had stuff right in my face, I've been grappled and couldn't properly counter, and so on; with this method, it won't matter if they're in my face or if I get grappled, I'll still be able to equally contribute to defeating the encounter.
Weapon Focus being disallowed was done to permit characters to build more diversely instead of taking these de facto feats all the time, and those who were built with it were compensated for that. It's the same reason why Power Attack was permitted to all characters that met the requirements, and why Point Blank Shot was given to everyone for free as well, since those are feats that everyone takes.
right, the point is, UNLESS you clarify that your dex magus isn't a standard then people will assume the standard, and when someone claims that all of ranged combat isn't feasible to be used at all obviously people will be defaulting to thinking you're saying that bows are bad (which I'm not sure if you think that or not), all people are harping on is that BOWS are great and easy to do ranged combat with and are options for most classes. Throwing is less good cause it takes more effort. Lots of people consider them bad because they require more for less and the best options are limited to only a few builds.
Like had your thread been, "How can crossbow combat even be feasible" you'd have gotten, "it can't", and "bolt ace to target touch". That's basically the main way you'll get crossbows to be viable. (only 1 class)
Had your thread been, "How can sling combat even be feasible" you'd have gotten, "it can't", and maybe something with a halfling and warpriest.(1 race and class)
Had your thread been, "How can bow combat even be feasible" you'd have gotten, well basically most the answers here saying
why in the world would you think that? Bows are the best", and "easily, a lot of classes easily pull this off."
But since you said "how can ranged combat be feasible" everyone assumes you said "how can bows be feasible" as that's clearly the simplest way to show feasibility of a ranged combat. And it's VERY much moving the goalpost to say that you claim all ranged combat isn't feasible and then say that because bows are clearly viable but only 1 option that ranged combat as a whole still isn't feasible.
The point about switch hitting being a waste is how much did you invest in doing it at all? 2 feats. How much better could you have been instead? You could have had clustered shot to basically have your arrows bypass DR and also have picked up some other feat like extra feat to hit touch AC even more often.
Plus if you're having some giant come and grapple you that means there was a full round action where the enemy didn't attack, where they maybe provoked to move into you, have dropped their AC by 2, can't take attacks of opportunity letting them easily be flanked, and where they are only doing 1 attack a round by maintaining the grapple. So unless you're being outmanned your party should have the large advantage with you being grappled.
I'm not saying it's a bad call to remove weapon focus, but it does double hit players by reducing options to up attacks while increasing AC. Also if it was like power attack that everyone had it and thus everyone's build had it then why didn't he give that to you and not change the AC?