|
Is the Eldritch Archer a legal archetype for pfs?
No. If the magus has a weakness its its reliance on needing to be in melee and being able to be hit. Eldritch archer gets rid of that.
For a beginner, your best bet is to google the item you want and “archives of nethys.” For example, let’s look at the helm of the mammoth lord.
See the funny white X on top of the page? That's the glyph of the open road, symbol of the pathfinder society. That means it's PFS legal.
You can double check it by looking on the additional resources page. Hit ctrl F and the source it's out of to find the source, and then look for the item. Some of these entries are written as “X Y and Z are legal” and some are written as “everything BUT XY and Z are legal.
Please keep in mind that for anything outside of the core rulebook you have to be able to show the DM the book that it came from, either as a dead tree book, on a tablet, or a print out from a watermarked pdf. This generally means you need to buy the book in some form to use it for PFS.
Where is that type of information located because I had issues finding anything specific.
Also, my local venture captain keeps saying that there are a lot of things that prevent sniping but all I find are things that prevent sneak attacks and the sniping penalty. Am I missing something?
Blindsight, the lack of things to hide behind. Someone tossing a fireball in your general zip code. Moving around a corner.
Generally as long as your party has at least a meatshield the bad guys going to be busy with him anyway.
|
“Preventing sniping” may depend on how you and your VC are using the term “sniping.”
In game terms, sniping is starting your turn in stealth, making a ranged attack, then making a check to remain in stealth. Anything that keeps you from using stealth (usually lack of cover or concealment) prevents sniping.
Your VC may be trying to say that there are many things that negate most of the benefits of sniping. For example: if your target has uncanny dodge, a sniping attack isn’t any more effective than if you took a regular attack. You’ve still got a chance to stay hidden, but not more likely to hit.
|
|
Keyboard commands don't work on mobile devices. So most of the problem is Paizo suckling with Web pages. The vc said something about haze. So I'm guessing that he is talking about things that prevent precision dammage. That wouldn't stop the tactic though?
Right, I'm guessing you said sniping, he assumed you'd be making a rogue, and a lot of things stop sneak attack. Case In point probably haze smoke fog provide a 20% miss chance. On the original recipee rogue that would stop the sneak attack. On the unchained rogue it would not.
|
|
Why ban the Aldrich Archer? The only benefits are an arcane bond with a bow and a 2 reduction in penalties for shooting and different types of available weapon enhancements vs a base magus using a light crossbow. How does the seeking enhancement work with precision dammage?
A magus can't cast their spells through a crossbow.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack
How does the seeking enhancement work with precision dammage?
I'm not sure.
|
|
They can dual wield with magic. It amounts to the same thing, 2 rolls instead of 1. So from a game play standpoint it is slower and more of a hassle without it. Spell Strike is an alternate means of delivery.
*headscratch*
The issue isn't dual wielding crossbows or using a bow. The difference is that the Eldritch Archer can shoot empowered shocking grasps from across the battlefield while the magus needs to get up close and personal to deliver those.
|
|
Here is an entire thread dedicated to analyzing the pros and cons of the Eldritch Archer, and a plea to make it PFS legal.
The thread tangents off quite a bit but the basic argument boils down to “what, exactly, is the Eldritch Archer giving up in return for his cool abilities?”
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why ban the Aldrich Archer?
The standard answer to why something is banned is “because it does not ‘fit’ our campaign.” Think of it like when you were a kid and asked your parents “why” and they responded “because we said so.” Sometimes, Paizo gives us reasons why something is legal/banned, but more often than not they don’t. The primary reason for that is they don’t want to have philosophical arguments about what is/not a good or bad rule, too overpowered, they just don’t like it, etc. It is often easier to simply declare something banned and leave it that. Some dislike that approach and argue about it anyway. Others just accept it and move on. I typically belong to the latter group in order to maintain what little sanity I have left. YMMV
|
|
When my parents told me something was poisonous I knew not to eat it.
When they told me something was venomous I knew not to get bit.
(neither always worked but they worked a LOT better than because I said so)
Things generally get banned for
1) Being more evil than the other stuff is allowed to be. (because we do have kids playing and the last thing we need are satanic panic flashbacks to the 80s)
2) Not fitting with the campaign (This feat uses mythic rules which... we don't have.) Using a higher tech level than the setting has etc.
3) Ridiculously under-priced for what it does
4) This is thematic to a certain scenario, we'll hold it for a chronicle and make it special.
5) being overpowered in its niche.
That bold part is important, because no, something doesn't need to be a pounce kitty of death or black tentacles bad before it gets the banhammer. It just needs to be better at the thing it competes with. The virtuous bravo isn't more powerful than a diviner wizard. But it IS a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler. The primalist isn't the most broken thing in the game, but its a better barbarian than the barbarian.
The only drawback to the bow magus is that it doesn't have a bonus to concentration checks .. that it doesn't have to make because it doesn't need to step into melee. The only check on a magus are being a glass cannon and not getting full attacks , problems with archery does away with. It might not be game breaking but its head and shoulders above every other kind of magus.
|
|
I've become a huge fan of the organized play team's effort to control the potentially game breaking class, archetype, and feat bloat which has come pouring out of Paizo (and which I think has badly damaged PF1e). I only wish they had more time to carefully evaluate the impact of new material interacting with existing rules, etc. and then more aggressively use the additional resources and campaign clarifications to disallow problematic builds.
|
|
The problem is that the more they ban, the less of the material is legal and less reason you have to buy the book which is counter the the point of OP in the first place. It’s not organized play’s fault when some rules are published that could create conflicts or overpowered situations. The designers are not writing specifically for OP. They are trying to give cool ideas and concepts to the general gamers with the understanding that if something doesn’t work for a specific group or campaign, the GM will just disallow it. That puts a lot of pressure on OP to write limitations on what is allowed. Trying to please an entire international community all the time is nearly impossible. The best they can hope for is that generally everyone enjoys the majority of the rules and can tolerate what they don’t like. So far, that has been successful. We seem to forget that there is a portion of the community that enjoys min/max or overpowered play. There are others who dislike anything outside of CORE. There is no “ideal” rule set for OP. Your OP is someone else’s “just right.”
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know if the Eldritch Archer is overpowered or not, but there are specific “limitations” that aren’t really limitations.
It’s true that you can’t use shocking grasp with a bow. But you can use snowball, which is the same damage and intensifies and empowers in the same way.
It’s true that the attack doesn’t increase the spell’s range. That means you’re limited to 25’ plus 5’ every 2 levels. That’s going to be plenty for most PFS scenarios. Ask any gunslinger that needs to be within 20 feet for touch attacks. And when it isn’t enough, you have scorching ray. PFS just doesn’t have a ton of encounters where you need much more than 30-40 feet of range, and you’ll quickly have that on your close spells.
It’s true that firing a bow within a creature’s reach provokes. It’s also true you can 5’ out of that more often than not. It’s nothing that any other archer doesn’t have to deal with (except zen archers). In other words, it’s not a huge limitation. It’s not a huge advantage over other archers, either. Unlike other archers, though, an Eldritch Archer can still have a touch spell or an aoe as a backup. If a normal archer gets pinned down, they either provoke or they draw a weapon they aren’t good with and attack. A Magus can cast defensively even without the extra bonus and toss a lightning bolt or vampiric touch or whatever spell they have in reserve.
Whether or not any of this is worth keeping the Archetype restricted, I don’t know. But none of these things are very effective limitations on it. So if the argument against the Archetype is that range combat is too effective compared to melee Magus, I don’t see any of these points as an effective counter to that.
One other advantage of the Archetype is that the bow is an Arcane Bond. Which means upgrades are half cost. It gets this without giving anything up. Black Blade at least loses an Arcana. Other archetypes, like Kensai, Kapenia Dancer, and Myrmidarch (the other Magus with Ranged Spellstrike) get Diminished Spellcasting. It seems at least like Eldritch Archer should have had that.
|
|
A few quick thoughts by way of a reply. I’m running King of Storval Stairs tomorrow, and I want to make sure all the blades in the PC slicing devices are razor sharp.
The problem is that the more they ban, the less of the material is legal and less reason you have to buy the book which is counter the the point of OP in the first place. It’s not organized play’s fault when some rules are published that could create conflicts or overpowered situations. The designers are not writing specifically for OP.
It’s certainly not OP’s fault but it is Paizo’s fault. I think an argument can be made that Paizo has broken PF1e with an undisciplined approach to producing new material. I don’t think enough effort and thought was put into the interactions of new classes, archetypes, and feats with existing material, and the result has been gaping windows of munchkin opportunity for players with sufficient time and money to study and purchase the necessary books. I find it to be a little ironic and more than a little depressing that having broken PF1e in this manner, the response of Paizo is to toss it onto the garbage in favor of the what I see as a flawed PF2e.
They are trying to give cool ideas and concepts to the general gamers with the understanding that if something doesn’t work for a specific group or campaign, the GM will just disallow it.
Yes, and the OP team are our GMs, so it is up to them disallow things that don’t work.
That puts a lot of pressure on OP to write limitations on what is allowed. Trying to please an entire international community all the time is nearly impossible. The best they can hope for is that generally everyone enjoys the majority of the rules and can tolerate what they don’t like. So far, that has been successful.
I would disagree that they have been successful. I think they have made a noble effort, but for one reason or another too much cheese has snuck through. It also becomes exceptionally difficult for GMs to know whether or not PC's builds are legal. I've come across a lot of high-powered, min/max builds that when looked at more closely (which often can't be done) turn out to be illegal in one or more ways. I don't think the players in questions are deliberately cheating, but I think they often build optimistically, assuming the most favorable interpretation of a hole or ambiguity in the rules. Another problem, of course, is the dependence of some players on Hero Lab which allows folks to create builds they don't necessarily understand.
We seem to forget that there is a portion of the community that enjoys min/max or overpowered play.
I certainly don’t forget this as I see it quite often. However, I think this minority portion of the community very often damages OP for other, more casual players, newer players, and players who like to build some RP elements into their PCs. Very high-powered builds trivialize content and overshadow the efforts of other players’ PCs. I don’t think this is healthy for the long-term sustainability of the OP campaign. Folks who want to min/max could still do so with a tighter and more extensive set of restrictions in Additional Resources and Campaign Clarifications, they would just face a different set of constraints and opportunities.