|
I've been wanting to play an Eldritch Archer for a long time now, specifically one with a wide breadth of knowledge about their targets, and access to all damage Cantrips to always trigger enemies weaknesses - and apply a bunch of persistent damage as a good measure. With Society rules now allowing to make 7th level characters from the get go, and explicit permission to use pre-remaster Cantrips, I think the time has come to give this guy a try.
I've got a few builds in mind and I'd like your help to land on one. While I understand there are many more options to achieve the same goal, I've split all decisions in a series of 2-3 options choices, as these are the ones that I'm currently more interested in and intrigued by. I'm always open to consider more of course, but try to mix and match from the ones listed if you can - consider it a build-your-own-adventure kind of post.
Just a reminder, this would be played in Pathfinder Society, so a well rounded build will always be preferable over an overly-specialised one.
Accuracy is the name of the game, as it sucks to waste 3 actions on a missed attack. The Class options are:
- Fighter. Never wrong with a Fighter. Pro: High accuracy means more likely to hit - and crit! Accelerated weapon proficiency also carries higher flat damage on average, and Point Blank Stance adds an extra +2 right off the bat. Con: Not much support for anything else.
- Gunslinger. Same as Fighter, but with gusto.
- Investigator. The ultimate action saver via Devise a Stratagem (DaS). Pro: Never waste actions on misses, and potentially choose to limit the action investment only on crits, and roll Recall Knowledge for free using Know Weaknesses. The additional Skill Feats and Skill bumps greatly help out of combat. Con: Significantly less flat damage (even when factoring in Precise Strike), and still less accurate than a Fighter, so overall fewer chances for crits regardless of rolling ahead of time.
NOTE: with how linear Society scenarios are, it is very likely that all encounters will be related to one of the two active leads, so assume DaS as a free action. In the rare instances when that does not apply, the Investigator is not worse, in terms of accuracy, than any other class outside Fighter.
ALSO NOTE: I really don't care about Magus, Gunslinger Spellshot, or Beastgunner. No disrespect to the Magus, Gunslinger Spellshot or Beastgunner fans.
Class feats are boring [citation needed]. This play style requires Dedication:
- Cavalier. Despite being at range, moving is important, and with 3 actions to attack, none are left for repositioning. This is a bit less of an issue for Investigators, who can use a low DaS turn to move, but it can be even more aggravating for them when their DaS is a non-20 crit and their target is one Stride away from landing it. Pro: A mature mount allows free movement on the battlefield. Con: Ranged combat is still much less pressed for movement than melee, and a Large mount may make movement actually more cumbersome in tight spaces like dungeons.
- Pathfinder Agent. Two extra Expert skills (Society characters get free Training in Lore: Pathfinder Society), pseudo-proficiency in all skills, extra Cantrip through your Wayfinder (we need a lot of Cantrips), and Recall Knowledge bonuses. Pro: great Dedication that hits all the right spots. Con: does not expand our chassis outside things we're already more or less good at - Investigators get proportionally less due to Keen Recollection and already having additional Skill bumps.
- Palatine Detective. This one is for the Investigators (duh!). We get TWO Cantrips (we need a lot of Cantrips), and most importantly access to Divine Lance, which is hard to come by otherwise. We also get 1/day 1st, 2nd (and then 3rd) rank Spells from the (presumably) Occult tradition, which may include more options for our Eldritch Shot (e.g. Ray of Enfeeblement, Telekinetic Manoeuvre) and/or utility options (e.g. Haste). We also get a nifty reaction to reduce damage if we have a free hand, which is nice. Pro: greatly builds on the Eldritch Archer shtick by adding Cantrips and spells. Con: we are locked out of Alchemical Sciences methodology.
NOTE: Dedication chain must close before 6th level to allow Eldritch Dedication. This means that only Dedications with at least one Skill feat are suitable. For as good as it would be to get Fighter with Investigator Dedication, it won't work.
Bow or Crossbow? I know, it's Eldritch Archer, but hear me out:
- Gukgung. 1d8 base damage, Deadly d8, 100ft range, Propulsive if you can spare 2 Str - this is the better and improved version of a Composite Shortbow: +40ft for one die step down Deadly is a no brainer. Pro: it's a bow - Reload 0 and 1 hand when not firing, pretty much the default option, and the only option for Palatine Detective due to the damage reduction reaction requiring a free hand. Con: it's not a crossbow, and I like crossbows. Also, needs 0+ Str to avoid damage penalty which might not be guaranteed depending on the Ancestry choice (see below).
- Sukgung. 1d8 base damage, Fatal d12 when held 2-handed, 200ft range. If critting with an Eldritch Shot is cool, imagine how cooler it is when the arrow carrying the spell deals a bunch of d12s in damage. I know, Reload 1 means you can't Eldritch Shot back-to-back, BUT:
i) you might still need to do other things between shots, e.g. move, heal, cry, so you might just as well Reload as part of that "dead" turn - this is even less of an issue on Investigators;
ii) Reaload-Hit-Reload after an Eldritch Shot turn is not a bad turn;
iii) Eldritch Reload at 10th level makes this issue moot.
Pro: Fatal d12 slaps. Con: despite the copium, Reload 1 is clearly a limitation before 10th level, and the need for 2-handing for Fatail Aim makes this unusable for Palatine Detective.
If you Can-trip, you can-be-it. We need a lot of Cantrips, so Ancestries that give us Innate Cantrips are needed:
- Human (Aiuvarin). As basic as toast and as good as sliced bread. Can get 3 Cantrips, and even a free 2nd rank spell at 9th level, although that feat slot will be 99% taken by Multitalented like every single Human build in existence.
- Gnome (Fey-Touched). The fun option. Can get a couple of Cantrips from Fey-Touched and Animal Accomplice (Cantrip Connection), which are both flexible to a certain extent, plus an extra familiar ability for other things like Extra Vial (for Investigator), and an third Cantrip can be obtained via First World Magic. Additional Gnome feats can be used for Animal Elocutionist, Gnome Obsession, or Unexpected/Fortuitous Shift.
NOTE: I prefer Gnome, but there is really little difference between the two from what I can gather.
To hit all weaknesses, we need a lot of Cantrips (in case it wasn't clear). I'll assume:
- 3 Cantrips coming from Ancestry sources
- 1 Cantrip from Dedication sources (+1 for Palatine Detective)
- 1 Cantrip from Eldritch Archer Dedication
- 2 Cantrips from Spellhearts
Total: 7 Cantrips
If enemy is weak to elements:
- Fire: Ignition (Spellheart, 55gp)
- Frost: Ray of Frost (Ancestry)
- Slashing/Electricity: Live Wire (Ancestry, if Human; Spellheart, if Gnome, 350gp[!!!])
- Acid: Acid Splash (Ancestry)
- Sanctified/Spirit: Divine Lance (via Eldritch Archer if not Palatine Detective)
If enemy is weak to metals:
- Needle Darts (Spellheart, if Human, 90gp; Eldritch Archer[Ancestry], if Gnome)
If enemy is weak to slashing, or is susceptible to bleeding:
- Slashing/Bleeding: Gauging Claw (Dedication)
Unfortunately this leaves out Bludgeoning, which is where one more Cantrip may come in clutch via Telekinetic Projectile, but it might be overkill at this point (as if it wasn't overkill already). Battering Ammo + Magic Ammo can be a substitute on regular hits.
EDIT. Impossible Magic added a Telekinetic Projectile Spellheart (Cerebral Barbell) - Get pumping!
At the moment I'm leaning towards a Sukgung-wielding, Pathfinder Agent Investigator Gnome, but ask me again in 10 minutes and I'll give you a different answer. What do you think? Even if you don't have any suggestion, I hope this was a good read anyway. Thanks all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator definitely. RK as a free action is required IME for a weakness-fishing built.
Why only 2 Spellhearts ?
Armor = 1 Spellheart
Main weapon = 1 Spellheart
First Free-Hand weapon = 1 Spellheart
Second Free-Hand weapon =1 Spellheart
You could also have back-up weapons with 1 Spellheart each, but it might become costly as far as weapon Runes are concerned.
|
|
Dedication-wise, I feel Pathfinder Agent is best and this way you can take the Alchemical Sciences methodology.
But then I am partial to Pathfinder Agent for all RK builds, and later Scrollmaster Dedication with Bestiary Scholar at level 10 to easily cover all you RK needs. Doubly so with Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think investigator is a good choice. The skills are important in PfS, while top combat performance is usually not.
I doubt you will be happy with the amount of enemies that have weaknesses, but one has to try...
I really like the free stratagem on my magus, wasting three actions on a miss feels bad. Important detail is that the attack statagem is only for strikes, if you roll low against a single enemy you can use a spell attack (or a save spell, of course).
|
|
Why only 2 Spellhearts ?
Mostly because at the time of writing there were only 2 Spellhearts that could be useful:
- Flaming Star 55gp (Ignition)
- Spiny Lodestone 90gp (Needle Darts)
with one of them being swapped for an Energizing Vial 350gp (Live Wire) if the build strictly requires it, given the high cost.
But with Impossible Magic adding Cerebral Barbell 60gp (Telekinetic Projectile), we're definitely up to 3:
- Cerebral Barbell on main weapon (+2 Force damage after activating Telekinetic Projectile vs enemies weak to Bludgeoning OR immune to Bleeding)
- Flaming Star on Armour (2 Fire resistance, why not)
- Spiny Lodestone on Gauntlet Bow
Taw launcher weapon for the Modular trait to cover all Physical damage types. You gain access and proficiency by being a Human with Unconventional Weaponry.
Taw Launcher is definitely a great option and a good crossbow alternative to the Sukgung. However, with Gauging Claw being the default Eldritch Shot option due to its sheer damage, and the introduction of the Cerebral Barbell Spellheart, the Modular trait becomes redundant for triggering weaknesses - although can still be useful to avoid piercing resistances (not sure if common). The main drive is the base d10 damage AND Deadly d10, which kinda balances out with the Sukgung's base d8 and Fatal Aim d12, but it comes with an ancestry feat tax, which we might not be able to afford given we're using 3 ancestry feats on Cantrips.
|
|
I think investigator is a good choice. The skills are important in PfS, while top combat performance is usually not.
I doubt you will be happy with the amount of enemies that have weaknesses, but one has to try...I really like the free stratagem on my magus, wasting three actions on a miss feels bad. Important detail is that the attack statagem is only for strikes, if you roll low against a single enemy you can use a spell attack (or a save spell, of course).
Sigh...Fine, I'll bite. Should I go Starlit Magus with Investigator Dedication and forget about Eldritch Archer altogether?
The initial appeal for Eldritch Archer was to have it on a Fighter for unparalleled accuracy, but as I veered towards Investigator, the current drive is the prospect for Eldritch Reload, and of course the Investigator's improved Skills and Methodology. But I wonder if I'm giving it too much credit and I should simply give Magus a second (probably third) read to see if I can wrap my head around the idea. What do you think?
|
|
From the gear thread, to go with Divine Lance :
+ Faith Tattoo (80gp) to get Holy or Unholy sanctification (though you still need sanctified options, e.g. Divine Lance).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the gear thread, to go with Divine Lance :
+ Faith Tattoo (80gp) to get Holy or Unholy sanctification (though you still need sanctified options, e.g. Divine Lance).
Yep. Otherwise no Sanctified (holy/unholy) damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think investigator is a good choice. The skills are important in PfS, while top combat performance is usually not.
I doubt you will be happy with the amount of enemies that have weaknesses, but one has to try...I really like the free stratagem on my magus, wasting three actions on a miss feels bad. Important detail is that the attack statagem is only for strikes, if you roll low against a single enemy you can use a spell attack (or a save spell, of course).
Sigh...Fine, I'll bite. Should I go Starlit Magus with Investigator Dedication and forget about Eldritch Archer altogether?
The initial appeal for Eldritch Archer was to have it on a Fighter for unparalleled accuracy, but as I veered towards Investigator, the current drive is the prospect for Eldritch Reload, and of course the Investigator's improved Skills and Methodology. But I wonder if I'm giving it too much credit and I should simply give Magus a second (probably third) read to see if I can wrap my head around the idea. What do you think?
I play a PFS Ancient Elf Starlit Span Magus currently lvl4 who is all about RK. I spent all her General and Skill feats, including the one from her background, in Additional Lores for Creature types.
But then I took Cleric dedication for Fire Ray and it gave me access to Vitality and Holy damage.
Investigator is not that much required because, as a Magus, you can cast both Sure Strike and True Strike for your first 2 Spellstrikes in combat.
And you will definitely lose on all the skills and skill feats goodness of the Investigator, not to mention the methodology.
I usually think Starlit Span Magus is better than Eldritch Archer dedication because of the higher flexibility provided by Spellstrike taking only 2 actions.
But for the PC you want to play I vote for Investigator with Eldritch Archer dedication without a second thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator is not that much required because, as a Magus, you can cast both Sure Strike and True Strike for your first 2 Spellstrikes in combat.
Huh, I guess that would be legal in PFS. They are technically different spells. That’s extremely funny.
|
|
Investigator definitely. RK as a free action is required IME for a weakness-fishing built.
Why only 2 Spellhearts ?
Armor = 1 Spellheart
Main weapon = 1 Spellheart
First Free-Hand weapon = 1 Spellheart
Second Free-Hand weapon =1 SpellheartYou could also have back-up weapons with 1 Spellheart each, but it might become costly as far as weapon Runes are concerned.
Just realized I forgot you can add a Spellheart to Handwraps of Mighty Blows and to a Shield Boss on a Buckler for a total of 6 Spellhearts.
|
|
Unfortunately this build might not work or be severely limited by a literal reading of the Eldritch Shot ability: unlike Starlit Span Spellstrike, Eldritch Shot does not explicitly override the cantrip's range, making it incompatible with melee cantrips (Gauging Claw) or against any target farther away than the original cantrip's range (e.g. target is 40ft away, Ignition has 30ft range).
Rules thread here.
|
|
Investigator is not that much required because, as a Magus, you can cast both Sure Strike and True Strike for your first 2 Spellstrikes in combat.Huh, I guess that would be legal in PFS. They are technically different spells. That’s extremely funny.
I'd never do this and as a PFS GM I'd actively veto it. The permission to use both pre- and post-remaster cantrips is written in a blog post, not a rulebook, nor an official errata. The blog post specifically goes through "Objectives", "Guidelines" and general reasoning, not strictly hard rules. In fact, the whole text relevant to this issue is under General Guidance, not Specific Rules.
As such, you can't simply extract the relevant excerpt in isolation, you must keep the context in mind. And the context is that the remaster brought two types of changes:
- Changes driven by game mechanics
- Changes driven by licensing
Acid Splash, Ray of Frost, Produce Flame, iconic spells in the D&D tradition, have been replaced by Caustic Blast, Frostbite, Ignition as a result of both. They have completely different mechanics and carry a different name to both distinguish them from the legacy options, and be ORC compliant. Both versions can coexist as they are only thematically overlapping, but otherwise do different things.
Example: the produce flame spell has not been reprinted, but ignition takes its place thematically. Characters may learn either spell anytime they would learn a new spell, and could learn both spells if they chose.
True Strike, also extremely iconic, and Sure Strike are instead the same spell. Unlike the Ignition example above, Sure Strike takes True Strike's place mechanically, not thematically. The only difference is the name, which is a change caused solely by licensing issues. In other words, had WotC not been a whiny baby, this change would not have occurred. Arguing that True Strike and Sure Strike are independent and both allowed simultaneously purely on a literal reading of the blog post goes against the actual listed objectives of the post.
For as much as I enjoy rule-lawyering and malicious compliance, this is simply taking advantage of Paizo doing its best to minimise the impact of imposed licensing issues on the player base. So unless you truly believe it's Alex Speidel's, author of the blog post, honest intention to treat True Strike and Sure Strike as completely different spells, you only get one reroll every 10 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t play PFS but I was under the impression that GMs there are bound to follow RAW even if it’s a bit dumb, and true strike and sure strike being different spells is unambiguous RAW - they’re two spells with different names, printed in different books.
The reason that these two extremely similar spells exist is licensing crap, but that doesn’t change the result.
|
|
I don’t play PFS but I was under the impression that GMs there are bound to follow RAW even if it’s a bit dumb, and true strike and sure strike being different spells is unambiguous RAW - they’re two spells with different names, printed in different books.
The reason that these two extremely similar spells exist is licensing crap, but that doesn’t change the result.
Did you read the blog post linked at the beginning where the relevant text is? It's not RAW, it's not an errata, it's not in the Specific Rules. It's in the General Guidance section.
The General Guidance gives you context and examples on how to apply these changes to the game. These are important, and they do change the result if you take them out of context. Treating the same spell - different names (kinda, 50%), different books (obviously, it's a remaster), SAME EFFECT - as two different ones goes against the guidelines and blog's objectives.
As a side note, people like to appeal to RAW all the time, but even rules as written require a certain degree of interpretation that's rooted in linguistics and the mutual understanding that what I mean when I write is the same as what you mean when you read. As a PFS GM I have the authority to adjudicate how to interpret the rules, because different interpretations of the same RAW may lead to different outcomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did read the general guidance. It allows you to take a spell and it’s remastered version as separate spells so long as they as they’ve been printed as separate spells.
Example: the produce flame spell has not been reprinted, but ignition takes its place thematically. Characters may learn either spell anytime they would learn a new spell, and could learn both spells if they chose.
True strike has not been reprinted. A different spell named sure strike has. These spells have extremely similar effects (especially with the PFS errata to true strike) but they have been printed as distinct spells, and the rule directly states and even gives example to the effect that you may take both a pre-remaster and its remaster successor spell if they are printed as different spells.
If the wished to disallow using both true strike and sure strike they could have issued PFS notes or the like to that effect, but the only PFS note I’m aware of regarding true strike or sure strike is the one adding a cooldown to true strike, which could but does not exclude it from being cast in proximity to truestrike.
Or a general note that if separate character options are too close (what’s too close, who knows) then a player can’t take the pre-remaster and remaster versions. That would also work fine, but to best of my knowledge hasn’t been done.
A GM is of course free to make house rules to the above or use a different remaster policy… unless they’re a PFS GM who is supposed to follow the rules the PFS set out and maintain consistency across tables.
|
|
I did read the general guidance. It allows you to take a spell and it’s remastered version as separate spells so long as they as they’ve been printed as separate spells.
Example: the produce flame spell has not been reprinted, but ignition takes its place thematically. Characters may learn either spell anytime they would learn a new spell, and could learn both spells if they chose.True strike has not been reprinted. A different spell named sure strike has. These spells have extremely similar effects (especially with the PFS errata to true strike) but they have been printed as distinct spells, and the rule directly states and even gives example to the effect that you may take both a pre-remaster and its remaster successor spell if they are printed as different spells.
If the wished to disallow using both true strike and sure strike they could have issued PFS notes or the like to that effect, but the only PFS note I’m aware of regarding true strike or sure strike is the one adding a cooldown to true strike, which could but does not exclude it from being cast in proximity to truestrike.
A GM is of course free to make house rules to the above or use a different remaster policy… unless they’re a PFS GM who is supposed to follow the rules the PFS set out and maintain consistency across tables.
We're clearly disagreeing on what constitutes a rule and what is a guideline. You're also misrepresenting what I said about PFS GMs having the authority to interpret rules as "making a house rule" in an attempt to delegitimise it. That's a bit silly.
It's OK though. At the end of the day, I'm the one actually GMing PFS games, and as such I follow the PFS rules according to my understanding of them, not yours. I'll take my chances with my VA all the way up to Paizo if I ever receive a complaint from a disgruntled double trouble True/Sure Strike player. Until then, one reroll every 10 minutes consistently across all the tables I run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll make sure to file a complaint or whatever if I come across your table.
Frankly I don’t know how to submit a report and I don’t know what name you go by for PFS records anyways.
Also, such a report has much better standing if it’s actually negatively affected my character in a real PFS game rather than being a hypothetical situation that could happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But sure, anyone actually affected should file a report.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will if I ever run across your table while playing a preexisting character that uses true strike and sure strike, and thus have the consistency and integrity of my PFS play experience impacted by official PFS rulings being disregarded.
I don’t wish to make said report on a hypothetical that hasn’t actually happened to me. That’s bordering on spam.
That said, anyone who does end up in that situation should file a report.
They don't need to include sure strike in the immunity because it's baked into the spell now thanks to the Fall 2024 errata. true strike never got the errata, so PFS has to clarify.
Raven meant baking sure strike immunity into the true strike note. (And presumably vice versa)
Ah I see, my bad then.