| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archers seem pretty balanced. I do agree that longbows are a bit of a trap though. You think "Yeah, this thing does more damage, it's better than a shortbow obviously" but that volley trait is really a pain in the ass unless you've got PBS. My players have slowly come to this realization after plenty of fights where they've had to run away from enemies just to mitigate that penalty.
I do also think Ranger precision with gravity weapon (and a pet) is probably the most damaging, though I think a Fighter is pretty good too if only because the extra proficiency and the multishot feats are pretty decent. Ranger also has a lot more support for activities outside of combat. I like them both for Eldritch Archer, too, which can get some fun big hits off.
Archery I think is also one of the only fighting styles that actually can benefit from using every action to attack. Not only are there a lot of abilities that let you pour on the volume of fire, but deadly makes crit fishing a bit better, and if you don't need to move for whatever reason you can afford to spend all of your actions trying to get a hit. There's also something to be said about making sure you can deal with flying monsters, which can sometimes just have their way with a party that lacks strong ranged attacks.
It's all tradeoffs, which seem to concern people on forums. Pros and cons. But not a trap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most common fights are at close range with a choke point (in general a door) between you and the enemy. This single choke point is why you can't have "as much melee characters as you want in the front line".Also known as the Diablo Dungeon Door Defense. Our party utilizes that tactic a lot.It's been around since the 70s with Gygax.
To this day DMs are still funneling their creatures to their doom, got no idea why.
It's very variable between GMs.
I rarely go through the door if my creatures are intelligent. Of course, for stupid ones, it's another story.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the monsters are sufficiently stupid and/or aggro, I throw in a few extra and have them fight each other while crowding through a choke point.
"ME FIRST"
"NO ME FIRST"
*greataxe*
It always creeps me out that GMs see this as some kind of "kill your PCs to teach them a lesson" thing rather than "have the enemies act the fool and hope your PCs learn".
The smart enemy archers take cover and move around, like I wish the PCs would. The smart enemy melee fighters use skirmish tactics and maximize flanking and sometimes even delay to let spellcasters drop control spells, like I wish the PCs would.
The dumb enemy melee fighters block firing lanes, and make third Strikes at negative modifiers, like I wish the PCs wouldn't. The dumb enemy archers leave their allies to suffer alone and spread their firepower on many different targets, like I wish the PCs wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Longbows are situational weapons in PF2. Using one, especially at low levels, even for fighters with point blank shot is often going to result in a worse attack then using a shortbow. -2 to attack is never worth 1 point of damage, and many lower level APs feature dungeons with 5 ft halls, and 4 square rooms. Honestly, if you run an AP with more than 4 players and you use only the maps provided in the books for every encounter, it is about 50/50 at best you are going to have 30ft and no cover to your enemy. It gets better at higher levels though as larger enemies often demand larger maps.
Before 4th level, there is very little reason to carry a Longbow as your primary weapon. However, the shortbow is an exceptional weapon in the tight-nit spaces of low level APs and will easily outpace a long bow for damage as you never have to move to try to keep range. By level 4, if being an archer and using a long bow is going to be your thing, you really need to spec into it with feats, which literally any character can do.
They certainly are situational, but they are quite a bit more damage than shortbows if you can get the Magic Weapon buff. I know the longbow wielding flurry ranger in my party when I was playing a bard largely carried the damage through the early levels with my buffs on them, but we started with an outside adventure rather than a dungeon crawl. That player really liked using all their actions to make attacks, and they were able to do that really effectively by playing a goblin riding a wolf animal companion once they got to level 6 so that the wolf could move out of the 30 foot range before he threw 3-5(with haste) shots into something. With that playstyle, the extra 2 damage from the longbow with each landed shot made a whole lot of difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They certainly are situational, but they are quite a bit more damage than shortbows if you can get the Magic Weapon buff. I know the longbow wielding flurry ranger in my party when I was playing a bard largely carried the damage through the early levels with my buffs on them, but we started with an outside adventure rather than a dungeon crawl. That player really liked using all their actions to make attacks, and they were able to do that really effectively by playing a goblin riding a wolf animal companion once they got to level 6 so that the wolf could move out of the 30 foot range before he threw 3-5(with haste) shots into something. With that playstyle, the extra 2 damage from the longbow with each landed shot made a whole lot of difference.Longbows are situational weapons in PF2. Using one, especially at low levels, even for fighters with point blank shot is often going to result in a worse attack then using a shortbow. -2 to attack is never worth 1 point of damage, and many lower level APs feature dungeons with 5 ft halls, and 4 square rooms. Honestly, if you run an AP with more than 4 players and you use only the maps provided in the books for every encounter, it is about 50/50 at best you are going to have 30ft and no cover to your enemy. It gets better at higher levels though as larger enemies often demand larger maps.
Before 4th level, there is very little reason to carry a Longbow as your primary weapon. However, the shortbow is an exceptional weapon in the tight-nit spaces of low level APs and will easily outpace a long bow for damage as you never have to move to try to keep range. By level 4, if being an archer and using a long bow is going to be your thing, you really need to spec into it with feats, which literally any character can do.
Unfortunately, there is no mounted longbow use in PF2. It is in the description of the weapon. Mounted would make it a lot easier to keep distance. Even with magic weapon it is only a +2 to damage. If you are having to waste 1 action a turn to keep your distance (including finding a spot you can stand 30ft away, and not give yourself even worse cover penalties, that bonus damage is going to get consumed by the action loss.
I am not saying "Don't ever use a long bow at low level!" There are certainly some campaigns where it can work out. Just be aware that most APs do not favor the large open maps that let you take advantage of the extra range and a D8 for damage instead of a D6 is not worth a -2 to attack ever, especially not on a weapon with D10 deadly on both versions.
Carrying both bows is a fine choice for many characters, but will get costly at higher levels. At some point, you are much better off making a decision to either stick with the shortbow and not sink class feats into mitigating volley, or sticking with the Longbow and sinking the feats to grab archer dedication and Point Blank Shot, even for a ranger.
Skipping Hunter's aim at level 2 to pick up the archer dedication might feel like a hard choice at level 2, but you still get your crit specialization 3 levels early (which is great on a bow) and then you get point blank shot at level 4, making the longbow viable just at the point you might be picking up a striking rune and benefiting from having a low bow. Archer's Aim at level 8 is a much better version of Hunter's Aim and then you are done with the dedication and very good with a longbow. As many folks have pointed out PF2 is very good at making choices have trade offs. A character could also decide to stick with a short bow for the whole campaign and do other things with their feats to be worth the eventual 3 point of damage shift in the weapons.
As a note, the Mature Companion Mounted Retreating Archer Ranger does rely on a few things that can't be assumed for every table (depending on campaign type, level of RAW focus, etc.)
Being an outdoor adventure full of big clear spaces is one thing, as you already mentioned. The mature animal companion plan also has a few sticking points.
1. Riding mature animal companions: You have people that interpret the mature animal companion free action as only happening after the ranger, reasoning that until that point, it isn't established that no command will be given. You also have people that interpret the mount rules to mean that when mounted, a mature animal companion will waste its free action if not commanded.
I don't favor either of those interpretations, but I've seen them be widespread enough to merit mention. However, the ranger animal companion has one other issue for a RAW-focused table:
2:The ranger Mature Companion feat reads as follows, and doesn't technically allow the free action to be used to ride away:
Your animal companion grows up, becoming a mature animal companion and gaining additional capabilities. If you have the Hunt Prey action, your animal companion assaults the prey even without your orders. During an encounter, even if you don't use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action that round on your turn to Stride toward or Strike your prey.
#2 doesn't matter if the companion comes out of an archetype, instead of ranger, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good points that could very well change my evaluation of the longbow for the ranger in particular. Looks like we didn't go over that player's rules enough on several fronts. They would have had to get Daikyu proficiency through the unconventional weaponry racial feat and general adopted ancestry and been Beastmaster archetype to get to about the same level of effectiveness as we were playing it. That's a lot more hoops to jump through.
The Daikyu does seem like a really good option if you're a human archer.
I do think the extra range on the flurry along with the other benefits is worth the cost of using the longbow on the monastic archer switch hitter I was talking about in my current game.
Daikyu doesn't have propulsive or deadly. Even if you're 8 or 10 strength it only edges out the shortbow by a little. Makes it a little bit questionable.
Yeah, daikyu also has the probable misprint of having "Reload -" instead of "Reload 0" which prevents using it with a lot of bow feats if you don't fix it by minor houserule.
Daikyu doesn't have propulsive or deadly. Even if you're 8 or 10 strength it only edges out the shortbow by a little. Makes it a little bit questionable.
If you are looking at it as a martial weapon, it's ok-ish: the less likely you are to crit the less likely you are to miss deadly so if your game features a lesser amount of harder to hit foes vs say numerous easier to hit ones a martial Daikyu might do ok. It's a shame it doesn't have the monk trait since it's improved range without volley would be a viable option for a monk with Monastic Archer Stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daikyu doesn't have propulsive or deadly. Even if you're 8 or 10 strength it only edges out the shortbow by a little. Makes it a little bit questionable.
At the first striking rune, the damage from the Daikyu's D8 is equivalent to a strength 18 propulsive shortbow. At the second striking rune, the Daikyu's damage is 1 higher on average per shot, which is more than the deadly d8 contributes against all but the least armored enemies. It's not a strictly better weapon, but it does scale better into the late game.
The most common fights are at close range with a choke point (in general a door) between you and the enemy. This single choke point is why you can't have "as much melee characters as you want in the front line".Also known as the Diablo Dungeon Door Defense. Our party utilizes that tactic a lot.It's been around since the 70s with Gygax.
To this day DMs are still funneling their creatures to their doom, got no idea why.
I agree that an intelligent opponent should withdraw and find a better place to fight. In this sense ranged weapons come into their own. If the enemy doesn't have good ranged attacks, you can make them come to your chokepoint.
Don't forget polearms, spells and many other abilities have reach or range, and are very useful at a choke point. Archery is just where it starts.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing to note, in regards to the "you're failing your party by not soaking up damage" claim made earlier in the thread:
Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.
If you can consistently deprive enemies of actions, then you're doing your part as a damage sponge, even if you're not actually in melee range taking damage. Even if you're just, e.g., spamming arrows at an enemy to force them to Take Cover, that's still one action not spent on offense; depending on the enemy, this could do anything from keeping that enemy from making a third Strike on its turn so it can Take Cover or retreat after attacking instead (and thus reducing the amount of potential damage it can deal to your allies by an amount equal to its third Strike), to breaking its standard attack pattern entirely (and thus crippling its primary strategy and forcing it to do less damage overall). This is especially true if you can goad the enemy into moving towards you, at which point you're effectively soaking multiple actions' worth of attacks and potentially making it provoke AoOs from your front-liners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing to note, in regards to the "you're failing your party by not soaking up damage" claim made earlier in the thread:
Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.
If you can consistently deprive enemies of actions, then you're doing your part as a damage sponge, even if you're not actually in melee range taking damage. Even if you're just, e.g., spamming arrows at an enemy to force them to Take Cover, that's still one action not spent on offense; depending on the enemy, this could do anything from keeping that enemy from making a third Strike on its turn so it can Take Cover or retreat after attacking instead (and thus reducing the amount of potential damage it can deal to your allies by an amount equal to its third Strike), to breaking its standard attack pattern entirely (and thus crippling its primary strategy and forcing it to do less damage overall). This is especially true if you can goad the enemy into moving towards you, at which point you're effectively soaking multiple actions' worth of attacks and potentially making it provoke AoOs from your front-liners.
Wonder if allowing the opponent to pass by is the same. I mean they have to use actions to move so it fits your mantra
Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First things first: a bow and arrow is awesome in a game without hit points, where you can actually kill/main your enemy with a single shot. Like reality for instance. (Whether you have a bow or a pistol, the benefit of range is FIRING FIRST)
This by far biggest advantage is negated in a game where you need four or five solid hits to take something down with your arrows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna take more than a few arrows to stop a hero. XDFirst things first: a bow and arrow is awesome in a game without hit points, where you can actually kill/main your enemy with a single shot. Like reality for instance. (Whether you have a bow or a pistol, the benefit of range is FIRING FIRST)
This by far biggest advantage is negated in a game where you need four or five solid hits to take something down with your arrows.
I'm torn between being confused and being mad that I watched the ending first.
The hoops you need to jump through to get a daikyu aren't completely clear, from what I understand. Unconventional Weaponry requires the weapon to have an ancestry tag or to be common in another culture, but the daikyu doesn't have any ancestry tags, and there isn't any information about it other than its physical description, in this edition.
I honestly don't see that as problematic to using it with this Feat. It isn't a stretch to imagine that there is SOME culture SOME where where Daikyu is common. Indeed, the very essence of the Uncommon trait implies that there is some group for whom it IS common. Even if the rules don't supply us with one exact answer for that question, it isn't a stretch to consider that in all of the universe there exists one such group (since we don't actually need to care who or what the group is, for purpose of Unconventional Feat).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The supremacy of ranged fire is predicated on being able to meaningfully stop an enemy with your fire.
Being able to stay at range or otherwise out of melee, can give you enought time to do this. If you can realiably stay at range your damage output can be a lot less and still effective.
There are two critical flaws in your assumptions.One - that you're the archer, Bob's the archer, Sue shoots bolts of fire. Yes, if everybody is a ranged character you can keep the distance, and you can claim "your actions soak damage", because the monsters just don't have anyone to chew on.
But the existence of half the classes suggest this is not the case! Even having ONE swordsman or greataxe wielder in the party completely negates this argument. (Or I guess, you could have the swordsman pretend he's an archer and then just have a sucky unfun playing experience to enable your ranged tactics)
Two - because monsters have hit points it is not in their interests to duck and weave and take cover. A GM that plays his monsters being afraid of your arrows are only enabling you. Against a GM that just soaks your fire to close with the fighter your strategy is sub-optimal - you need to get in there and help the fighter by taking your share of the attacks so the fighter doesn't get overwhelmed. Not letting the monsters focus-fire is essential! Being there so the fighter can temporarily step back when necessary is essential!
And once we reach this conclusion, the question remains the same:
If you're in the thick of it anyway, why not respecc to Strength and pick up a better weapon? After all an archer deals significantly less damage than the greataxe guy.
You are missing that
1) healing is a lot more efficient than dealing damage for certain builds. So a Cleric can keep up a point man for a long time provided he is tough enough to take a full round. A cleric can undo the enemies ability to focus fire.2) some characters are a lot tougher than others and better defenses. A defender can work really well.
3) most characters will have some sort of reasonable secondary ranged attack even if they are melee focused. At least if their players have any experience at gaming at all. In which case you can change tactics if you are in a situation where it will work.
Regardless archery is very good at focussing fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Rogue Archer ended up top damage during Plaguestone. So, the legend that archers don't deal damage is nothing but a myth. Side note, there was a Barbarian in the party. Side side note, I was using the Electric Arc + shoot combo for just excellent damage. And I was not hesitating in going to melee to get Flanking and as such took my fair share of damage.
Bows provide flexibility, it saved the day when we met a certain ooze.
Also, they reduce the damage output of the enemies, as your party tend to avoid the big-ball-of-melee strategy that increases greatly the damage received as monsters can use all their abilities to the max of their efficiency.
Of course, if all your fights are very similar and they put melee at an advantage, you should go melee. But that's just one GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Rogue Archer ended up top damage during Plaguestone.
Surely not in the first book :-). An electic arc spamming archer would be almost completely useless in many of the fights in book 1.
And if your archer is outdamaging a barbarian then something is seriously wrong. Against the foes in book 1 a barbarian should absolutely shine
Oozes who split on electical and piercing damage, very low AC oozes who can't be crit. A barbarian with a maul should absolutely ROCK[/Spoiler]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Rogue Archer ended up top damage during Plaguestone.Surely not in the first book :-). An electic arc spamming archer would be almost completely useless in many of the fights in book 1.
And if your archer is outdamaging a barbarian then something is seriously wrong. Against the foes in book 1 a barbarian should absolutely shine
Spoiler:Oozes who split on electical and piercing damage, very low AC oozes who can't be crit. A barbarian with a maul should absolutely ROCK
Well, that would be a discussion about Plaguestone, but many fights are extremely nasty for melee martials, especially the tough ones. I even think the best group for Plaguestone may be a pure ranged one.
Also, the Barbarian replaced the Wizard at the beginning of book 2. So I can't tell you about the Barbarian in the first book. And I'm pretty sure no one in the party realized the amount of damage my Rogue did. Tons of small hits among multiple turns are extremely hard to track. A big greataxe critical seems so much more damaging...| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Paraphrased: No, I hate archers, so you're wrong.)One other thing to note, in regards to the "you're failing your party by not soaking up damage" claim made earlier in the thread:
Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.
If you can consistently deprive enemies of actions, then you're doing your part as a damage sponge, even if you're not actually in melee range taking damage.
First, archery is very much a part of the heroic fantasy, and extremely effective against most characters. The biggest reason it's not the main tactic is that sword fights are significantly more interesting to watch, and just seeing the big bad keel over with an arrow through the skull is extremely anticlimactic. So, most fantasy works tend to make the hero a swordwielder and allow named characters that aren't the archer's rival specifically to shrug off arrows, for the purpose of forcing a climactic melee battle with lots of swords clanging, sparks flashing, blades blocking, and one very happy blacksmith getting a ton of business from all these people that don't know how to wield swords properly and just flynn all the time instead.
This is less true if the archer is the main hero and/or one of the five-man band, in which case they'll tend to either get into an archery duel that really shows off their skill, or use superior tactics to take down a melee maven with their bow & arrows at significant disadvantage. (Possibly with the final blow being dealt by a dagger, or by jamming the last arrow in by hand, to be a more viscerally entertaining underdog victory for the audience.) Alternatively, if the archer is a waifish woman, she's liable to emerge victorious purely through archery skill, as a way to keep her from getting injured onscreen (which would be a distinct possibility in melee range); at best, a major plot enemy might get close enough to destroy her headwear and make her hair dramatically fall about her head to show her being "damaged" without actually showing injury, at which point the power of unrestrained hair allows her to emerge victorious and look worse-for-wear than she actually is.
(Note that this does have a bit of an historical basis, as archers could actually be more effective melee combatants than swordwielders if given proper training, on account of bows requiring significantly more upper body strength than most melee weapons. Their main weakness was just that they lacked formal melee training and typically couldn't afford plate armour.)
Basically, the issue is that Plot Armour has DR/5 Piercing, but a weakness to Slashing. This is a concession made for entertainment, and becomes less common when trying to entertain the archer themself.
-----
Second, you do have a point that this is entirely dependent on how the GM plays the enemies, but, of course, you've left a few things out of the "analysis" because they don't favour your point. If the enemy is intelligent, they're liable to use cover or send minions to occupy or pressure an archer, allowing you to effectively soak damage by soaking action economy instead. If the enemy is unintelligent and just charges the front lines, however, this becomes significantly harder, and forces alternative tactics (such as, e.g., crit-fishing to mechanically pin them to the ground, or picking up some ranged utility spells they'll have to work around)... but the enemy will be taking the full brunt of your onslaught as they run up to the front line, meaning your melee maven can probably take them down in one or two hits. And if they have a Cleric on call, then the healing will prove more potent if concentrated than if spread out. Alternatively, the archer can focus fire on the frontliner's target, dealing significant damage to any enemy foolish enough to not run from the guy charging with a greatsword and flanked by a hail of arrows.
-----
Basically, your entire argument seems to assume that the PCs are the puny nameless enemy archers plinking the heroes while they wait to be slaughtered for the audience's entertainment. These people tend to be significantly less effective than protagonist archers, which is who you should be looking at. Just ask Robin Hood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I stated, it's unequivocal that Paizo nerfed archery as compared with PF1. Whether its current state is sufficient for an individual is going to be dependent on that individual and the effort and resources they devote to leveraging it.A person can play a character that relies on throwing rocks if they are so motivated.
Hey NN959, I think we are playing in the same PbP AP! I am the wizard in that group.
I think your arguement here is that PF2 has nerfed the ceiling of what an archer can specialize into compared to PF1, as opposed to simply nerfing archery, but this is pretty much true for every combat style.
In PF1, like with many combat styles, Archery was all or nothing. It took way too many feats to be a proficient archer in PF1. At very low levels a character might carry a useful backup bow. By level 7 or 8, you were so specialized in a combat style that no one switch hit from bow to a melee weapon anymore.
Most characters can still spend all their class feats trying to specialize into a combat style, but at a certain point you stop picking up feats that stack together, and start picking up feats to cover alternative situations than your ideal combat routine. This is true of every character, it is also true of archers.
Bows are much easier to use for the vast majority of characters, comparing PF2 to PF1.
Also, trying to use exclusively use a long bow as a ranger in a PF2 campaign is going to give you a very skewed idea about how archers play. Especially at low levels and in APs you will spend way too much time fighting against the volley trait. I play a cleric Archer in an AP and rogue Archer. The Cleric Archer is stuck with the longbow because of the deific weapon of Ketephys, and even at level 8 it is a headache to get decent firing lines in. Of course I haven't taken a single class feat to back up my archery, so I am reaping the harvest I have sown with that character.
The Rogue uses a shortbow and is almost never in a situation where I cannot fire at least 2 times a round, sometimes 3.
Sometimes it just takes some very minor adjustments to your play style and you can find yourself having a lot more fun with your concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I stated, it's unequivocal that Paizo nerfed archery as compared with PF1. Whether its current state is sufficient for an individual is going to be dependent on that individual and the effort and resources they devote to leveraging it.
While this is true, presenting it this way is misleading because it suggests other things are different.
Nearly everything in PF2 can be classified as "going to be dependent on that individual and the effort and resources they devote to leveraging it."
IMO (I'm not a designer but the comments from Paizo staff seem to support this), it's a deliberate attempt to get away from some of the "cut and paste" play of PF1 where people could just cut and paste the same set of actions every round, and if they cut and paste their character from the Internet, they could auto-succeed.
So, yeah, you can't leave a single melee fighter all alone to take all the damage. That's intentional. And you can't succeed by Stride-Stride-Strike on your first turn and Strike-Strike-Strike every turn thereafter. That's also intentional.
Archery does take quite a bit of creativity to work well, and a few feats to support it. So does melee. And spellcasting. And healing. And Influence.
If you want formulaic success, I suggest playing PF1. People have worked out some great strategies and builds, and spamming full round attacks is super win. I still play quite a bit myself and because I don't have 10 years of ennui, I enjoy it immensely. My alchemist flies around raining bombs against touch AC; I have an inquisitor archer that's on the verge of getting bane. I just finished GMing a scenario where PCs just enlarged each other and murdered the crap out of an entire castle guard in 1.2 rounds. Still very fun, but I can totally see why developers were frustrated because the characters and the monsters were so powerful that there was a narrow range between "too easy" and "too difficult". PF2 put in the guardrails so no character can solo a fight through good decisions, nor any character single-handedly cause a TPK with a bad decision.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of pointless to say anything was "nerfed" from 1e to 2e, given they are completely different games with different rules, mechanics, and math with no direct compatibility. You may as well say 2e buffed Barbarians from DND4e. Literally nothing good can come out of bringing it up.
If you think there aren't mechanics, feats, items, etc to support archery... Look harder? I assure you, they exist. They even printed a whole archetype for it.
As I stated, it's unequivocal that Paizo nerfed archery as compared with PF1.
Essentially everything is nerfed from PF1 except for a handful of specific ideas that were just incompatible with the old system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I stated, it's unequivocal that Paizo nerfed archery as compared with PF1.Essentially everything is nerfed from PF1 except for a handful of specific ideas that were just incompatible with the old system.
Melee is soooo bad in PF2 smh. Can't even ragelancepounce anymore
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A precision ranger archer does quite good damage. I find it strange that people are bringing up half-strength as a big negative, when it is only a big negative at early levels which is easily countered by the precision die.
The higher level you get, the less a percentage of your damage Strength becomes. Archery is no different.
The precision ranger archer we've had does quite good damage and has many advantages over a martial damage dealer, especially at higher level with mobility and powerful spells becoming more of an issue:
1. Archery allows more tactical options than a melee martial damage dealer. You can have an archer pull a target to a party. Archery allows you to stack easier in hallways without impeding their ability to do damage, so if you pull a large creature into a hallway you can have your main martial or martials block it into the hall while your archer hammers it from the back with your caster.
Archery allows engagement of flying and mobile targets such as flying casters or dragons.
Archery allows the engagement of targets behind barriers that martials can't get to like murder holes or windows.
Archery allows kiting where a ranger with Twin Shot can use one action to attack and up to two actions to move while kiting a target allowing an action economy advantage over many creatures.
Archers can kill runners more easily.
A 100 foot range bow is the equivalent of 3 move actions for most martials to engage.
2. Tactically intelligent groups tend to draw the creatures into disadvantage terrain rather than vice versa, so damage soak shouldn't be an issue as you level up.
3. Pure damage numbers. A well built precision ranger will do a lot of damage.
Our lvl 16 Precision archer has the following damage profile when fully active:
1st hit: 3d8 P + 2d8 Precision + 1d6 fire + 1d6 acid +6 specialization + 2 strength +6 status (gravity weapon) = 43 points on that first shot
He will use Hunter's Aim for hard targets for the hit bonus and Deadly Aim or Twin shot for the damage bonus on soft targets.
Regular shots: 3d8 +1d6 fire +1d6 acid + 2 str +6 specialization = 28 a hit
Critical hits with a bow are super nasty. Double the above and add 2d10.
4. Ranger archer can pick up a pet to help soak damage and do melee damage on top of archery hits as well as provide flanking, while still engaging the battlefield at all points. If they so choose.
Disadvantages of Archery:
1. Volley Penalty: This can make you spend a move to create the distance to avoid the penalty or cause a lower chance to hit if no room to create the distance.
2. Creatures immune to piercing or precision. Piercing immunity pretty rare. Immunity to precision fairly common and affects the precision ranger, rogue, and swashbuckler most profoundly.
I do not see the precision ranger archer as a trap option. Neither does my group. Archery is a valuable combat style that allows more tactical options to your group. There have been more than a few times where archery proved its worth whether it was engaging enemies early while melees closed, attacking flying creatures or creatures using terrain advantages, or firing from cover using terrain advantages and stealth to kite and reduce damage from a monster.
I can see a group that sort of runs into battle without much tactical thought seeing archery as a trap option. A smart tactical group that knows how to use archery on a battle map to their advantage will find archery a very attractive and powerful combat style.
You do not have to soak damage if you can just soften the target, force it to engage your group in terrain advantageous to you, then attack in all three dimensions at a range of up to 100 feet easily. I don't understand how this advantage isn't obvious as well as the means to exploit the enemy using it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it would be more clear if I stated:
Archery does not have the same relative efficacy as it did in PF1.
One way to understand that is recognizing that in PF1, no one had to give up class abilities to become an archer. In PF2, everyone has to sacrifice class abilities to be an archer.
What do you mean by this? I don't understand this statement. There was an immense feat investment for archery in PF1. There is less of a feat investment for archery in PF2.
No class abilities are given up. Class abilities greatly differ in PF2 from PF1. Combat styles are not innate to any class and require a feat investment for any class.
You can easily build a precision ranger who can do archery, great weapon fighting, and have a pet all at same time doing them all effectively. Whereas in PF1 a ranger had to invest nearly every feat into archery and when he wasn't using archery, he sucked much more at fighting.
The power drop to alternate fighting styles in PF2 is not nearly as steep as PF1 where you invested so heavily in a particular fighting style that to not use it was a substantial damage drop. That drop does not exist to the same degree in PF2 for a variety of reasons from Specialization applying to all weapons to the much smaller number of feats needed to do well with a particular fighting style.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Precise Shot is a "game changer"... what an absurd assertion. Back in my day we called it a feat tax and nobody liked it. In PF2 a Bard can use their shortbow as a third action at level one and feel pretty good about it. In PF1 that same Bard better be starting out as a Human if they don't want to be taking stacking penalties up the ass.
Disadvantages of Archery:
You have missed that a lot of the feats are very ordinary. The really good archery feats are all level 16+.
A few of the basics are Ok like Point Blank Shot and Hunted Shot
But as you go up levels there is a big gap before you get anything else Archer specific that is good and exciting.
Example: Compare Double Shot to Double Slice or to Sweep. What are you actually getting +1 to hit on your second shot for the disadvatage of splitting your attack, Whereas the melee option is getting +3 or +5.
I wouldn't take Double Shot or Triple shot until I needed it as a prerequiste for Multishot at level 16, Then I'd retrain out of them all at level 18 for Impossible Volley. They are just not worth it. Even as a dedicated Fighter Archer I'd always be going elsewhere.
Now there are some Ok archer feats around. They do a few useful things. But substantially you get nothing much past the basics till high level. Your offensive values don't go up.
Compare this to say a Rogue Opportune BackStab or a SwashBuckler Bleeding Finisher and it just feels flat.
Now there are some good powers out there Eldritch Archer and Marshal (Target of Opportunity)is where I'd choose to go as a Fighter Archer. Or I'd just head off in a different direction with the character and have a plan B that wasn't archery.
Its not much better as a Ranger Archer. The good options aren't there. I'd probably just digress into an Animal Companion.
This statement is problematic. You're conflating a subjective belief (the amount of archery invested needed for both PF1 and PF2) with a failure to acknowledge the circumstances that invalidate the core assertion
PF2 has far fewer feats available for archery.
It has far fewer feats because the feats are unnecessary. They wanted to reduce the specialization in PF2 and it was done.
So are feats given up or not?
The fact is, and it is a fact, Paizo has commoditized the majority of every classes' abilities into class feats and then forced players to choose between them. In PF2, if you want Hunted Shot or Point Blank you're having to give up some aspect of your class abilities to get it. If you want to be an Archer, you're most likely going to have to take Archer, or Ranger, or Fighter Dedication. In PF1, I don't have to give up Rogue abilities to get Point Blank Shot, or Precise Shot, or Improved Precise Shot.
What are you talking about? A wizard could not do archery as easily as they can now with a minimal feat investment, while still being good at magic. You take a single feat called archery to get bows and arrows at your maximum proficiency.
What do you mean give up rogue abilities? In PF1 if you wanted to do archery a non-archery class, you had to give up entire levels in your class which was class abilities and especially bad for casters.
You're not stating anything factual. You're making stuff up that doesn't apply to either game.
This is all unadulterated opinion. And you're entitled to it.
An assertion based on what actual game data?
Opinion? It's literally in the game rules.
Weapon specialization affects all weapons you have proficiency in whether a bow, two-handed weapon, one-handed weapons, or any weapons.
Hunter's Edge affects any target you use Hunter's Prey on. So precision affects your greatsword, your two weapons, or your archery. Any weapon you're using.
This allows you to switch between weapons very easily.
If this were true, it would result from the fact that the archery feats just simply aren't that impactful comparatively. Combined that with the inherent nature of PF2 to make the majority of feats have as little impact as possible, and it's quite likely that a player won't see much of a drop off if they ignore one archery feat or several. In PF1, the feats did something. A lot of something. Precise Shot is a game changer. Improved Precise Shot is a game changer. Clustered Shot is a game changer. IMO, nothing in PF2 even approaches that level of impact on archery.
Nothing is as impactful comparatively in PF2 as it was in PF1. That's by design as PF2 wanted a less specialized game where it wasn't as punishing to make a more well-rounded character capable of doing more activities very well, sort of like real fantasy heroes in books who don't do the same thing over and over again.
PF1 was highly focused and specialized with severe drop offs in power if you didn't use your schtick constantly. PF2 is less specialized and less punishing if you switch your fighting style or tactics.
This is by design and obvious within the rules structure.
You and I are not going to agree one what it means to do "well." We will agree that there are simply a much smaller number of archery feats period.
One of the things that seems to be lost on many in this discussion is that the entire design philosophy of PF2 was to reign things in as compared with PF1. The farther out there something was, the more relative nerfing Paizo had to put on it to get it back in line. Archery was out there. It was simply too good. Paizo just went too far, IMO.
The fact that there are no blunt arrows in PF2, is the mic-drop on this discussion, as I see it.
That's a mic drop? That's ridiculous. You don't need blunt arrows in PF2. They're completely unnecessary. Helpful at 1st or 2nd level fighting skeletons, but not necessary. And completely unnoticeable once you have a powerful bow.
And they can easily add blunt arrows as the put more books out.
As a DM and player, archery is quite power and does quite well. My archer players are quite happy with the options which allow them think about what they're fighting and use their feats accordingly.
When the ranger is dropping 100 plus point crits and 85 point regular rounds with Twin Shot while sending his pet in, he feels quite satisfied with his contribution. As he is doing comparatively great to the other characters in the group.
You have what is known as PF1-itis. You miss the power of PF1 and conflate your PF1 expectations with the capabilities of characters in PF2, so that you end up feeling underwhelmed comparatively.
Sorry, bud, they are different games. PF2 archery is quite good. Those folks that know how to build a good archer within the PF2 paradigm are having a good time because they have PF2 expectations. Those players still stuck in PF1 expectations while building a PF2 archer thinking they're going to wipe everything out at range are going to be disappointed like you are.
I'm glad that PF1 rubbish archer is gone. 6 and 7 attacks around with an enormous bonus at range killing everything I put in a similar category as the Come and Get Me Beast Totem barbarian. Just an annoyingly overpowered class option aimed at short-circuiting encounters by players with a power gaming mentality that though they could outdo the DM. Fortunately, Paizo integrated the equally overpowered mobile individual wind wall spell that used to short circuit archers in encounters against casters at least.
But hey, there is still 5E with feats where the archer is still ridiculous all for the cost of a single feat (if your DM allows feats of course).
For all those who like archery, PF2 archer is still a great combat style with a lot of value to groups. You can have fun playing one and be a switch hitter if you feel like it.
And I'm done debating with someone with PF1-itis. You're not interested in a good PF2 archer. You're feeling the drop off in power from the PF1 archer much like the God wizard and every PF1 class. They are all comparatively weaker than PF2 classes.
Fortunately for those with PF1-itis, PF1 still exists and has enough books for you to play forever. PF2 is just getting started. I much prefer to DM PF2 and won't go back to PF1. But you definitely have the option to keep playing PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disadvantages of Archery:You have missed that a lot of the feats are very ordinary. The really good archery feats are all level 16+.
A few of the basics are Ok like Point Blank Shot and Hunted Shot
But as you go up levels there is a big gap before you get anything else Archer specific that is good and exciting.Example: Compare Double Shot to Double Slice or to Sweep. What are you actually getting +1 to hit on your second shot for the disadvatage of splitting your attack, Whereas the melee option is getting +3 or +5.
I wouldn't take Double Shot or Triple shot until I needed it as a prerequiste for Multishot at level 16, Then I'd retrain out of them all at level 18 for Impossible Volley. They are just not worth it. Even as a dedicated Fighter Archer I'd always be going elsewhere.
Now there are some Ok archer feats around. They do a few useful things. But substantially you get nothing much past the basics till high level. Your offensive values don't go up.
Compare this to say a Rogue Opportune BackStab or a SwashBuckler Bleeding Finisher and it just feels flat.
Now there are some good powers out there Eldritch Archer and Marshal (Target of Opportunity)is where I'd choose to go as a Fighter Archer. Or I'd just head off in a different direction with the character and have a plan B that wasn't archery.
Its not much better as a Ranger Archer. The good options aren't there. I'd probably just digress into an Animal Companion.
I don't have a fighter archer in the group.
My player used the following feats the most:
Hunted Shot Lvl 1: 2 shots for one action. Bread and Butter for a while.
Hunter's Aim lvl 2: +2 circumstance bonus to hit for 2 actions for hitting those hard targets or getting a crit. A crit is basically two hits with an additional 2d10 damage and critical effects of magic items.
Deadly Aim lvl 8 feat: For soft targets for a boost in damage.
It was nice to see the feats encourage tactical decisions based on the defenses of the target. It gave that feel of an archer using his various archery skills to beat enemies. He would use two shots aimed at the same location against a target with high DR. He would use a carefully aimed shot against a high AC target. He would use a shot aimed at a vital area against a soft AC target. Very cool feel to the archer.
We had someone start playing a fighter archer, but that campaign didn't get past lvl 8 or 10. They were ok, but not quite as good as the Precision Archer ranger from what I recall.
I'm going more off the in game experience. The precision archer ranger used those low level feats all the way up to lvl 16 depending on the situation.
PF2 is so balanced, the archer is no less or more effective than any other class. They shine in moments, do consistent damage, and land some big crits that make the player happy.
Hunter's Aim lvl 2: +2 circumstance bonus to hit for 2 actions for hitting those hard targets or getting a crit. A crit is basically two hits with an additional 2d10 damage and critical effects of magic items.Deadly Aim lvl 8 feat: For soft targets for a boost in damage.
Yeah there is some utility there. I get that they have a use. But none of them really gives you anything special.
Hunters Aim is good at getting around concealment penalites if there happens to be any. But damage wise you are giving up an attack for your plus 2 bonus. That is marginal in normal circustances and probably a net negative if concealment is not a factor.
Deadly Aim gices you a minus 2 penaly to hit. Which reduces your damage by 20-30%. For which you get +4 damage. Yeah it works marginally better for really low AC or resistance scenarios. I would never take this feat. Hunters Shot is good enough against resistance. I'd rather do something else.
The feats work. They are useful. It is just I want better.
IMHO as a Ranger Archer I would always go elsewhere. Probably work on my animal companion more.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Precise shot is a feat every character gets for free in PF2. You might as well count that as a free bonus feat, along with weapon specialization, weapon focus greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization. Only you get these eventually in almost all of your weapons, so that is a ton of free feats PF2 characters get over PF1 characters.
Personally, I think an archer dedication at level 2 is a better investment for a ranger archer than hunted shot. Double shot will eventually be a much more used feat for you because if all the actions wasted with having to hunt prey and then killing your enemy on your first shot, all while trying to keep 30ft away. Honestly, I think outwit is a better edge for an archer ranger because you won’t feel as forced into hunting prey all the time, and it gives you an absurd amount of utility.
If you go fighter instead or archer dedication, PBS, and assisting shot are game changers. Daikyu instead of boosting STR could be worth another feat, but honestly, impossible aim and the archer dedication are also game changers with a composite short bow. This is all without touching double shot, which is a great feat for anyone who did pick up the Daikyu. There are more good archer feats than most characters that are not a fighter can take.
Seriously, archer dedication might be worth it for a ranger just to get assisting shot and PBS. PBS will probably be more useful to you Han hunted shot over time, even as a flurry ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Rogue Archer ended up top damage during Plaguestone. So, the legend that archers don't deal damage is nothing but a myth.I see these types of arguments a lot: "My xxx build did great that proves yyyy is false."
You've asserted that your specific build which relies on Sneak Attack and Electric Arc, did the most damage in your party. I obviously have no idea what the specifics of your situation are, but as you've laid it out, it does not prove anything about "archery" as a general comparative mechanic, or how it fairs on average.
I bring anecdotal evidence, you bring anecdotal evidence. So my post proves as much as yours. Unless you find a proof that Archery is a trap and then I'd love to laugh about it. Archery efficiency compared to melee efficiency is party, GM and encounter dependent. To compare archery to melee on average you'd need to determine the % of outdoors encounters, the % of flying monsters, the % of GM who focus fire, the % of parties with such and such composition, etc... So you can't, and the only thing you can bring is anecdotal evidence.
|
Is being an archer a trap?
The simple answer is, depends on your perspective. Plenty of people find flaws with archers that they feel make them unsuitable under a number of circumstances up to and including all the time. OTOH, many people, myself included, find archers to be quite effective with any flaws to be no more insurmountable than those experienced by any other build. YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And just to be clear, I don’t think hunted shot is always a trap, but in a party of 5 with 2 powerful melee brutes that chop down enemies so fast, I think it is very difficult to take advantage of flurry edge, because you often have to move and hunt prey in a round, and still end up firing through cover. Gravity bow ends up being another action and then the creature you hunted is already dead by the second round, if not the whole combat resolved.
Flurry with hunted shot could work out a bit better with a composite short bow and trying to stay up near the front of the party when doors open, so you can get shots in the first round, and probably not have to move. In the end everyone should play their characters how they want to, but if an idea isn’t as found as you thought it would be, it could be your party composition isn’t as compatible with that idea, but another idea might make it possible.
Hunter's Aim lvl 2: +2 circumstance bonus to hit for 2 actions for hitting those hard targets or getting a crit. A crit is basically two hits with an additional 2d10 damage and critical effects of magic items.Deadly Aim lvl 8 feat: For soft targets for a boost in damage.
Yeah there is some utility there. I get that they have a use. But none of them really gives you anything special.
Hunters Aim is good at getting around concealment penalites if there happens to be any. But damage wise you are giving up an attack for your plus 2 bonus. That is marginal in normal circustances and probably a net negative if concealment is not a factor.
Deadly Aim gices you a minus 2 penaly to hit. Which reduces your damage by 20-30%. For which you get +4 damage. Yeah it works marginally better for really low AC or resistance scenarios. I would never take this feat. Hunters Shot is good enough against resistance. I'd rather do something else.
The feats work. They are useful. It is just I want better.
IMHO as a Ranger Archer I would always go elsewhere. Probably work on my animal companion more.
ACs are quite high for boss monsters in PF2. Hitting with that first shot is vital to hit with the precision damage and gravity weapon. The precision archer is built around hitting that one big shot.
Multiple attacks often miss against high AC targets. The value of many attacks against a high AC target is marginal.Deadly Aim is very nice against creatures immune to precision such as oozes with low AC and other soft targets.
In PF2 having tools that do things in different ways is helpful.
It's very easy to boost your Animal Companion while taking the above feats, so it's not an either or situation.
I've seen all these feats in action up to lvl 16. I'm not sure what you would take that is better. All of the listed feats saw a lot of use against different enemies.
I think a fighter could do well too, though not in that one big hit way. I think the fighter might do better against multiple targets and higher AC targets due to the increased hit bonus.
I haven't seen a high level fighter archer yet. Fighters are very effective, but pretty boring as a class too.
What I love about the Precision Ranger with Hunted Shot, is that your rounds are handled by using 1 to 3 actions. Hunted Shot + Hunt Prey (sometimes) + Stride (sometimes). So you have a lot of space for other actions. Animal Companion is kind of obvious for a third action, but you can build a lot of different archers with either spells or skills as your second-third actions.
Melee characters are extremely contrived. You need in general 2 actions to attack and very often one action to move. I played a Twin Takedown Ranger with a Shield and a good Intimidate, I've Demoralized only once in its (short) career and used Raise a Shield inconsistantly. I mostly Hunt Prey, Stride, Twin Takedown every round.