Archer Bard?

[Gray Warden]

born_of_fire wrote:

Creatures that are innately immune to sneak attack are not the only ones that foil your tactic. You also have to be aware of blind creatures, creatures with tremorsense, blindsense and the more advanced scent feats, basically any creatures not reliant on sight; creatures that see in smoke and fog innately; creatures that have their own fog-cutting lenses or similar tool; creatures that can disperse your smoke or fog and there’s likely more than that too. Your GM doesn’t have “cheat” to challenge this tactic; there’s plenty of legit options that make sense for other reasons than shutting down this character.

Not to mention literally every spellcaster: Glitterdust, Confusion, Fireball, Cone of Cold, Confusion, Stinking Cloud, X Pit, Confusion, Wall of Fire, Confusion, or just Wind Wall to block the smoke; but also Dragons with their breath weapons, Alchemists, Negative energy channel Clerics and so on.

Usually they are not a huge problem because the party tends to spread on the battlefield to take advantage of the terrain, mingling with the enemy units, so that AoE effects usually only affect on average just two or three PCs...except yours will pretty much always be clustered around you: grown too lazy to wander and too scared to lose the safety of your smoke cover, your whole party will act as a slowly moving 30ft radius red-and-white target, begging to be bull's-eye'd by the most random 5th level Wizard with Fireball.

But wait, we can do better. Command, Suggestion, other compulsion spells cast on your party members on the surprise round before the cloud is set: "Come closer", and now that some of your allies are outside your 30ft circle you cannot hide yourself without hindering them. Or yet, Silence! First you spend your buffing rounds to fill the battlefield with smoke, your allies ready to strike from within when all of a sudden, not only they can't hear anything, but they cannot even see! Ha, Mass Blindness and Deafness for a puny 2nd level slot, the irony!

Oh, the fun your GM will have with all these choices, knowing that all the AoE spells he will cast will almost certainly target 100% of the party and that it will be 100% their own fault. I'm almost jealous.

EDIT. The more I think about it, even without spellcasters, Dragons, Alchemists, evil Clerics, unless your GM has - Int, do you really the enemies will stand there, completely blinded, while your party mauls them? As soon as you open the bottle and they realise that they have no way to deal with it, they will just use their round to withdraw away. Now they are more than 30ft away from you: no Sneak Attack, and 1 round of performance wasted. Your turn, what do you do? I guess you move to be 30ft away from the closest enemy and shoot one (1) mighty arrow dealing 1d8 + a bunch of d6s, and then choose: a) you stop the performance, deliberately blinding your whole party, or b) you keep the performance up, knowing well and good that the enemies will just retreat again, wasting more and more rounds of performance with no actual gain.

I start to think that you have actually never played such a character...

[Cavall]

It does seem funny that some of the spells used to get rid of a wall of fog would blow that little bottle away too.

[Meirril]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Yes, but I think worth it. There are other, cheaper options though. A Horn of Fog works almost as well and is much cheaper, and level 3 Bards can cast Pyrotechnics. But those have that problem you mentioned where they take Standard Actions to activate. Smokesticks, too, and they only provide partial concealment and don't deny opponents Dex mods to AC.

How is this character going to cast pyrotechnics? Bards don't gain access to 2nd level spells till 4th level. You could use a wand, but if you were going to do that you might as well buy a horn of fog. Well, no, because the horn of fog only produces 4 squares of fog per activation. And that fog drifts 10' per round. Lets say that horn of fog is less than ideal.

Horn of Fog and Smoke Sticks have the same problem of only providing total concealment in 2 of the 4 squares covered in fog. You need multiple applications to get enough to hide your party.

Honestly to pull this trick off without an Eversmoking Bottle you need the cooperation of another party member to create enough smoke to be worth all of the investment.

And in my opinion, you need more bard levels to keep feeding your performance to make it worth doing. 1 more bard level would let you cast pyrotechnics. More levels would mean more castings and less dependence on an uncommon item. The bards ability to keep performing is going to be worth more than the sneak attack damage.

All in all, I think this is an abusive trick. As a GM, I'd say no since it transforms combat for your entire party. Seriously, it has a huge impact on 80% of the encounters in a campaign, and it can ruin the fun for most of the party. It also would ruin the fun of running most combat encounters. Either its a complete curb stomp, or you get accused of cheating. What is the fun in that?

[Gray Warden]

Cavall wrote:

It does seem funny that some of the spells used to get rid of a wall of fog would blow that little bottle away too.

Not to mention a good ol' Steal™ combat maneuver from a random Rogue who got the surprise round cause he was stealthing.

I mean, one-trick ponies are already bad enough, but one-trick ponies relying exclusively on a single item?! Man, there are so many ways to shut them down :D

[Meirril]

Just talking a bit about action economy. Mr. Wilheim's build get 12 rounds of performance per day. That isn't 12 rounds of sneak attacks.

To start a performance takes a standard action, until you reach 7th level bard when it gets reduced to a move action. And at 13th level bard it becomes a swift action to start a performance.

So Mr. Wilheim's build can't shoot an arrow on a round he begins a performance. He loses one opportunity when he starts a performance.

There is a way around all of these limitations. It just costs a large amount of gold. If you get the Tuned Bowstring that CBDrunkerson brought up, and a bow with the Endless Ammunition (+2) special ability you can try to convince your GM that every round you shoot at something which lets you continue your performance for free.

Honestly, keeping that up for 10 minutes would be unbelievable. Drawing a bow takes a lot of effort and should eat your endurance leaving you exhausted, but some GM might allow it. Technically this is within the realm of possibility.

[Cavall]

Not to mention the ultimate in "you're facing a cloud of death that attacks come from"

"Ok. I leave."

[Scott Wilhelm]

born_of_fire wrote:

creatures with tremorsense, blindsense and the more advanced scent feats,

Blindsense, Tremorsense, and Scent allow you to find where your Invisible opponent is, but you still can't see them. You still suffer the 50% Miss Chance, and you still don't get your Dex Mod to AC. To counter that, you need Blindsight or the Blind Fighting Feat or something.

To counter those, I have my character take Dirty Trick Feats. If you run into a creature who can function normally while Blind, you can play a Dirty Trick to make them Deaf, too. Then you are back in business.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Meirril wrote:

General rule on magic items is that unless specified otherwise, it takes a standard action to activate an item.

I've been though this already. Per RAW, I think it is otherwise specified.

Eversmoking Bottle wrote:

The amount of smoke is great if the stopper is pulled out,

Move Actions wrote:

Retrieve a stored item

So, you Retrieve the stopper from the Eversmoking Bottle but not the Bottle itself.

Anyway, who cares if does take a Standard Action? It's a very powerful de-buff that works most of the time, and it only takes 3 levels to achieve it.

Meirril wrote:

That isn't 12 rounds of sneak attacks.

Yeah, you don't get to attack on the first round of your Performance, but the rest of your party does. For the Bardcher, it's really 12/day - 1/combat. That is minor point, but you are granted it.

Gray Warden wrote:

Cavall wrote:

It does seem funny that some of the spells used to get rid of a wall of fog would blow that little bottle away too.

Not to mention a good ol' Steal™ combat maneuver from a random Rogue who got the surprise round cause he was stealthing.

I mean, one-trick ponies are already bad enough, but one-trick ponies relying exclusively on a single item?! Man, there are so many ways to shut them down :D

Yeah, but now you're just saying that the character can be targeted by a resentful, GM. That's true of any PC.

Cavall wrote:

Not to mention the ultimate in "you're facing a cloud of death that attacks come from"

"Ok. I leave."

Well, if my opponents respond to the cloud of smoke by fleeing, well, that's me winning the encounter.

Meirril wrote:

How is this character going to cast pyrotechnics? Bards don't gain access to 2nd level spells till 4th level. You could use a wand, but if you were going to do that you might as well buy a horn of fog. Well, no, because the horn of fog only produces 4 squares of fog per activation. And that fog drifts 10' per round. Lets say that horn of fog is less than ideal.

So what? Get that Eversmoking Bottle. Get that Wand of Pyrotechnics. Take another level in Bard. Deal with the smaller cloud from the Horn. Like I said, there are a lot of ways to make smoke. My favorite is the Eversmoking Bottle.

My build isn't set in stone. A 3 level dip isn't that much to pay for a powerful de-buff. And you all must think so, too, or you wouldn't be dog-piling on me.

[Matthew Morris]

Someone already mentioned archereologists (TM) so I won't mention that.

Something else that can help the archer bard as a team player at higher levels? designating on the bow. I've seen this used in Organized play. Bardic performance + Designating + tangleshot arrow = target in a lot of trouble. Even if they're immune to being entanged, the tangleshot's to hit is usually a lot lower.

[born_of_fire]

No, we are “dog-piling” you because the 3 level dip you propose is not worth the very limited debuff it gives. It’s been thoroughly explained and is literally the complete opposite of what you’ve interpreted >.> We are also “dog-piling” you because it’s really quite difficult to rationalize this build as a bard, which is what the OP asked for.

It is plainly obvious to anyone with eyes that you are intractably enamoured of sneak attack. There are plenty of threads you’ve answered to with some variation of this same build, which is, I will grant you, a pretty solid system for sneak attacking on a mundane character. As laudable as it is, however, it’s certainly not needed to be recommended for like every second request for advice that is posted on these boards, especially when the request is a caster-type that your dips to maximize SA at the expense of CL and gaining spell levels are actively detrimental to.

I’ve tried to keep this about the build rather than pronouncements of badwrongfun but you are clearly determined to perceive this as a personal attack. The idea that a bunch of perfect strangers would take the time to get together and connive against you on the internet, rather than your build is a terrible idea and a bunch of perfect strangers can all see that independently of one another, is ludicrous!

[VoodistMonk]

Be an Arcane Duelist.

You can be the Sacred Tattoos/Shaman's Apprentice Half-Orc with Fate's Favored and Heirloom Weapon traits... you start with the +2 Luck bonus to saves, Endurance, and Orc HornBow proficiency.

You also start with Arcane Strike as a bonus feat, which is immediate access to a magical weapon, and it's pretty awesome that it scales with your caster level.

You get Arcane Bond with your weapon.

You progress into medium, then heavy, armor without ASF.

You eventually get Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike... which eliminates the need for Clustered Shots.

[Gray Warden]

born_of_fire wrote:

The idea that a bunch of perfect strangers would take the time to get together and connive against you on the internet, rather than your build is a terrible idea and a bunch of perfect strangers can all see that independently of one another, is ludicrous!

I mean, he is still convinced that activating the bottle is a move action because it counts as retrieving the bottle's cork from his inventory, and he has several times, in other threads, claimed that you count as your own ally for the purposes of Teamwork feats, refusing to listen to literally everyone else saying it wasn't correct. So yeah, I guess whatever we say is going to be ignored by default.

[Scott Wilhelm]

born_of_fire wrote:

No, we are “dog-piling” you because the 3 level dip you propose is not worth the very limited debuff it gives. It’s been thoroughly explained and is literally the complete opposite of what you’ve interpreted >.> We are also “dog-piling” you because it’s really quite difficult to rationalize this build as a bard, which is what the OP asked for.

It is plainly obvious to anyone with eyes that you are intractably enamoured of sneak attack. There are plenty of threads you’ve answered to with some variation of this same build, which is, I will grant you, a pretty solid system for sneak attacking on a mundane character. As laudable as it is, however, it’s certainly not needed to be recommended for like every second request for advice that is posted on these boards, especially when the request is a caster-type that your dips to maximize SA at the expense of CL and gaining spell levels are actively detrimental to.

I’ve tried to keep this about the build rather than pronouncements of badwrongfun but you are clearly determined to perceive this as a personal attack. The idea that a bunch of perfect strangers would take the time to get together and connive against you on the internet, rather than your build is a terrible idea and a bunch of perfect strangers can all see that independently of one another, is ludicrous!

You aren't the one who's making this personal.

I wouldn't characterize myself as enamored with Sneak Attack. I do think that Sneak Attack can be part of a powerful build.

[MrCharisma]

Let's move on from the sneak attack build.

Everything has been said about it (pros and cons), so unless the OP expresses interest in it we don't need to keep this thread talking about it.

Re: Dog-piling. Although our posts weren't directly attacking Scott, there were a LOT of posts talking negatively about it, and many of them didn't add anything new, they just repeated something that had already been said (possibly even mine). This IS dog-piling, and it is something I've seen the communitiy managers delet posts/lock threads for. As a general rule, try not to post negatives unless it' something new. Scott, I apologize if our posts made you feel personally attacked.

Re: Scott recommending sneak attack builds. It doesn't matter what he recommended in other threads, the OP asked for something in THIS thread and if it fits there's no reason not to post it here. It's a recomendation for the OP, who can take or leave it. You're welcome to offer criticism, but telling him he shouldn't post a build that he's seen as viable is a bit much.

Re: Irrelevant answers to the OP. I'm including this because I made a point of bringing it up earlier. I have a pet peve about people answering a question ("How do I XXXX?") by telling them not try what they're asking about ("Don't do XXXX, Do YYYY instead"). I don't think Scott's build really did this. It's on the cusp, but it does use bard levels, it does buff the entire team, and it relies on the bard levels for the build to function. While it wouldn't be my recommendation, it is offering information that couod be relevant to the OP's question. It's also showing mechanics of the game that newer players may not know about, which can be super helpful even if they ignore that specific build.

Also as a general rule remember that we don't get as much context when reading text as you do when speaking face to face. As such our words tend to feel more abrupt and agressive in this medium than they would in person. Try to remember this when reading and you'll probably find that a lot of the "attacks" are unintentional. On the flip-side of that, remember when you're writing that any criticisms will be turned up to 11 by the reader, so adjusting your language to be a little less asertive can avoid some arguments. If you can't find a way to rephrase something, add emoticons/emojis =P they can help to communicate your tone more than you'd realise.

[Slim Jim]

Gray Warden wrote:

This is somehow even worse than Slim Jim's "Just do not play an archer Bard",

Those quotation-marks are lyin' liars tellin' lies.

Quote:

and his reply is literally the opposite of what the OP asked! How can you beat that?! We are reaching levels of spam and/or reading comprehension disability

The Original Poster Entitled His Thread Thusly wrote:

ARCHER BARD?

And then he wrote:

Any advice on this?

Continuing, the OP wrote:

Thoughts on this build?

Example of said reading comprehension disability: failing to see the question marks. --The OP did not specifically state that he wanted a bow-shooter bard; you merely assumed so because that was the build he submitted to our collective analysis. What he really said was, he was "interested".

Well, a player in these forums hypothetically "interested" in playing, say, a Str 20 human core chained rogue who dumps charisma, wisdom, and dexterity to pay for it in point-buy might be, ever so gently, dissuaded from doing so by yours truly, no? --You know damned well that you'd "literally the opposite" Empowered crapstorm all over it.

The OP wrote:

1: PBS

1h: Precise Shot
2b: Versatile Performance (String)
3: Rapid Shot
5: Lingering Performance
6b: Martial Performance (Longbow)
7: Weapon Focus (Longbow)
9: Weapon Specialization (Longbow)
11: Manyshot

Slim Jim wrote:

I'm not a fan of archer bards because archery takes too many feats. --You'll end up being a mediocre bard (because you spent most of your feats on archery) and a mediocre archer (because your point-buy is skewed toward charisma, which is a dump-stat for martial archers, and away from strength, a bard's usual dump stat but which is needed for arrows as opposed to, say, crossbows) with 3/4ths BAB who still doesn't have enough feats.

To wit: the original proposal devoted all save one of its feats toward longbow fighting. No room left for Improved Initiative, Expanded Arcana, Scion of War, Spell Penetration, etc.

MrCharisma wrote:

I disagree with Slim that bards aren't great archers. They lack bonus feats, but they get enough static bonuses to hit and damage to be great damage dealers without worrying too much about stats. You also maximise Inspire Courage by adding more attacks to the group.

"Great", Adj. ...of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.

So what's "average" when it comes to archery? What are we comparing it to? Robin Hood? A 1st-level commoner plinking his daddy's bow? Or a 6th-level fighter, slayer, cavalier, "bowbarian", or Abadar warpriest with a Keen repeater? ...a 6th-level bard with a bow and any number of archery feats will not be the equal of any of the latter, let alone "considerably" superior. I.e., they won't be "great", at least as far as their archery goes. They'll be average, or "mediocre" (my choice of word), at the expense of also being a mediocre bard due to showing that side little to no feat love.

~ ~ ~

How the "archery bard" can mostly have his cake, and mostly eat it too, mostly:

Starting CHA:19 (human, 17,14,12,12,12,7 20pt single-dump array)
traits: Dangerously Curious, Reactionary
01 Swashbuckler1 [Flying Blade], Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
02 Monk1 [Far Strike:Quick Draw][archery feat:Precise Shot]
03 Bard1 [core], Weapon Focus:Starknife or Flagbearer
04 Bard2 [swap Versatile Performance for Desna's Shooting Star], CHA>20

gear: Blinkback Belt at 4th or 5th

* All-in charisma for spellcasting, melee attacks, ranged attacks, melee damage, ranged damage, and armor-class on-demand boost (panache point into Canny Defense).

* Feat investment in archery is already complete (aside from Clustered Shots at enemy-DR-becoming-a-problem levels), so everything else will be casting or performance-related.

* Unlike the bow archer, your ammunition expense are zero, Adaptive is an enhancement you don't need, and you're not spending twice the money for also upgrading a separate melee weapon.

[Meirril]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

So what? Get that Eversmoking Bottle. Get that Wand of Pyrotechnics. Take another level in Bard. Deal with the smaller cloud from the Horn. Like I said, there are a lot of ways to make smoke. My favorite is the Eversmoking Bottle.

My build isn't set in stone. A 3 level dip isn't that much to pay for a powerful de-buff. And you all must think so, too, or you wouldn't be dog-piling on me.

Eversmoking Bottle 5,400gp.

Wand of Pyrotechnics 4,500gp.
Horn of Fog 2,000gp. And this option takes multiple activations to be worth using the song to see through fog/smoke.

If you can afford the wand, you are less than 1k from buying a bottle. If you buy the Horn, you can get it much earlier but it basically delays you buying a bottle by 1k gold. Unless you can get someone in the party to craft it for free, then you might as well craft the horn asap.

The wand is stupid expensive even if you can craft it.

My objections actually revolve around taking 3 levels of bard and then abandoning the class. With more investment in bard levels you can overcome my objections. Furthermore, if you look at the fog as a powerful buff, adding more levels will let you apply more conventional bard buffs. Not songs, but spells. The trade off is you'll do less damage personally but you'll be more flexible with better spellcasting.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Meirril wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

So what? Get that Eversmoking Bottle. Get that Wand of Pyrotechnics. Take another level in Bard. Deal with the smaller cloud from the Horn. Like I said, there are a lot of ways to make smoke. My favorite is the Eversmoking Bottle.

My build isn't set in stone. A 3 level dip isn't that much to pay for a powerful de-buff. And you all must think so, too, or you wouldn't be dog-piling on me.

Eversmoking Bottle 5,400gp.

Wand of Pyrotechnics 4,500gp.
Horn of Fog 2,000gp. And this option takes multiple activations to be worth using the song to see through fog/smoke.

If you can afford the wand, you are less than 1k from buying a bottle. If you buy the Horn, you can get it much earlier but it basically delays you buying a bottle by 1k gold. Unless you can get someone in the party to craft it for free, then you might as well craft the horn asap.

The wand is stupid expensive even if you can craft it.

My objections actually revolve around taking 3 levels of bard and then abandoning the class. With more investment in bard levels you can overcome my objections. Furthermore, if you look at the fog as a powerful buff, adding more levels will let you apply more conventional bard buffs. Not songs, but spells. The trade off is you'll do less damage personally but you'll be more flexible with better spellcasting.

So, I'm saying there are options, and it seems like you think that for magic items for this build, the Eversmoking Bottle is your clear favorite just like it is with mine.

And your actual objections actually revolve around taking 3 levels of Bard and then abandoning it. The fact that 1 more level in Bard gives us Pyrotechnics is a good argument to take another level in Bard.

I was just responding to another contributors suggestion they floated about a Flame Dance Bard: that Flame Dancers can generate a powerful de-buff that works especially well with Sneak Attacking.

We have gone over all this before, though.

[CBDunkerson]

Meirril wrote:

General rule on magic items is that unless specified otherwise, it takes a standard action to activate an item.

Actual rule: "Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all."

For the Eversmoking Bottle the action which triggers 'use' is removing the stopper. Like swinging a sword, the 'use activated' magical effect takes no extra time. Thus, the only question here is how much time does it take to remove the stopper from a bottle.

Another actual rule: "Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action."

So, again... it seems to me that reaching down and removing the stopper from a bottle strapped to your belt (or bandolier or whatever) would be a move action. Even 'Retrieving a stored item' is a move action... so you could reach in to your pack and 'retrieve' the stopper. Further, I'd say that if you already had your hand on it then pulling out the stopper should be a free action.

Yes, 'sneak attack from concealment' is a 'one trick pony'. That's no reason to invent false obstacles against it... and there have been A LOT of them in this thread.

[baggageboy]

One option I want to throw out there that I plan on doing a full build thread on soon is the twilight speaker skald. It's a pretty solid choice as you get caring in medium armor buff saves for everyone and you start with longbow proficienct. Since you have medium armor you can bump strength a little most and reduce dex a bit to balance out your point but and still get good damage. Also you are now a more effective switch hitter.