(PF) Arcane Archer: A Different Perspective

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Arcane Archer is a PrC that has always struggled, and even with its boost in Pathfinder is considered somewhat weak compared to similar bow and spell wielding characters, such as the Magus or Eldritch Knight.

Part of it is the steep entry requirements, and the lack of caster levels. Consider that the quickest entry is fighter 6/Wizard 1.

by level 12, your straight fighter will be, of course, a level 12 fighter. You would be Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane Archer 5.

Assuming that both you and your fighter friend are both focusing on archery, what do you lose by instead taking a level of wizard and 5 of arcane archer? 3 Bonus feats, 2 armor training, and 1 weapon training.

What do you gain?
2nd level spells, access to wands, scrolls, etc. Your arrows gain some minor magic damage boosts, you can imbue arrows with area affects, plus some other minor abilities.

Even with this suboptimal build, it seems the Arcane Archer is coming out on top as far as versatility goes. The fighter might be ahead in damage via feats and weapon training, but not by much. With a Fighter 4/Wizard 4/Arcane Archer 4 you could have 4th level spells, at the cost of 1 bonus feat and 1 weapon training.

Compared to a full (or almost full) caster, yes, arcane archer is suboptimal. But compared to a straight martial class, isn't the arcane archer considered more "optimal"? Aren't spells more valuable than feats and minor boosts in damage?

Am I completely wrong, or does it seem that looking at the Arcane Archer from the archery focused Fighter's perspective, the Arcane Archer does it better?

[Answerer]

A Prestige Class's optimization value is commonly rated based on how they respond to the optimal entry.

In other words, yes, you are correct, and no one is likely to deny it, but... I guess, no one really cares? You see spellcasting, and you start thinking of it in terms of spellcasting, and in that area, it's awful?

It's kind of a double-standard, I agree, but then playing 3.5 is basically all about keeping at least two sets of standards...

[avr]

Fighter 12 is not commonly considered to be a sensible build. This leads to the conclusion that 'better than fighter 12' is a very low bar to jump.

I mean, you've even mentioned 2 slightly better possibilities already, but then you forget them and go back to comparing to the fighter 12 build? I don't follow.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I don't see why a guy who wants to play a good archer should be interested in spells if it means being less good as an archer.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

I am comparing to an equivalent level fighter because the fighter is a benchmark for dealing damage with weapons. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers may be as good or even better IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, but a fighter is the benchmark for dealing damage in combat.

Plenty of people still play fighters or other combat oriented classes, but then dump on AA as being a poor class. However, its better than the straight fighter or ranger that is often are recommending as a "better" archer.

As for why someone who wants to play a good archer would be interested in spells... really?
You're telling me the ability to cast spiderclimb, and then climb up a wall out of what would otherwise be a close quarters melee is a bad thing for an archer? Or casting Blur on yourself? Or Expeditious Retreat? or Gravity Bow? How about Overland Flight? Or if all else fails, and everything has hit the fan and you get a guy charging you, and you haven't any arrows left, or your bow is sundered... Shocking Grasp in your spellstoring Dagger?

[Benly]

As for why someone who wants to play a good archer would be interested in spells... really?
You're telling me the ability to cast spiderclimb, and then climb up a wall out of what would otherwise be a close quarters melee is a bad thing for an archer? Or casting Blur on yourself? Or Expeditious Retreat? or Gravity Bow? How about Overland Flight? Or if all else fails, and everything has hit the fan and you get a guy charging you, and you haven't any arrows left, or your bow is sundered... Shocking Grasp in your spellstoring Dagger?

Well, here's the problem. As you point out, more spellcasting ability almost inevitably means a more powerful character. The thing is, once you use that to argue in favor of the Arcane Archer, you then have to acknowledge that the same argument applies to making a "proper" caster instead of an AA. If you want to be able to argue that the AA shouldn't be compared against spellcasting classes, you can't just say "it's better because more spellcasting".

That said, if the thing you want to do is "an archer with a bit of spellcasting to back it up", Arcane Archer works fine. So does ranger. In either case, the correct answer to "why should I play this and not a wizard?" ultimately comes down to "because I don't want to play a wizard, I want to be an archer."

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

That said, if the thing you want to do is "an archer with a bit of spellcasting to back it up", Arcane Archer works fine. So does ranger. In either case, the correct answer to "why should I play this and not a wizard?" ultimately comes down to "because I don't want to play a wizard, I want to be an archer."

Which is exactly my point: We ought to compare an AA to a build with a similar FUNCTION, i.e. a fellow archer, certainly not to a full caster. Though there are superficial similarities to a full caster, the function of each is quite different.

I think it is well recognized that a Wizard 20 is an easy way to optimize, and yet, people still play things other than straight wizards, and other builds are still considered "optimal"... and some of the builds don't even have levels that grant spellcasting!

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, so compare it to EK.

EK only loses 2 caster levels at all, has a full BAB for those 10 levels, stacks effective fighter level, and has a much easier / less painful entry. AA...gets a bunch of worthless class features instead. The arrow enhancements could've been made up for just by...doing EK and casting Greater Magic Weapon*. The x/day crap is just too insignificant to matter. The Imbue Arrows is hypothetically good, but most good area spells don't need the range buff, and the severe lack of CL hurts with your selection. Like, someone said "imbue arrows + AMF is great!" And it would be! Except it's impossible for someone to get to AA 10 and actually be able to cast AMF! Best solution is to dip AA for 2-4 levels (escape before the next CL hit) and otherwise be a Fighter 1 / Wiz 5 / EK 10 / AA 4 or Fighter 1 / Wiz 7 / EK 10 / AA 2. Then you at least still eventually end up with 9th level spells.

* So you can have a +1 bow w/ whatever special properties you want and still end up with a +X bow.

[Benly]

The +5 arrows could've been made up for just by...doing EK and casting Greater Magic Weapon.

I don't really have strong feelings about your larger argument, but I feel the need to mention that this isn't actually quite accurate. The PF Arcane Archer gets +5 worth of weapon special qualities, and so it'll stack on top of whatever kind of magical weapon you already have. I don't really care to get into an opportunity-cost vs. benefit analysis, but your implicit assertion that GMW is as good as Enhance Arrows purely in terms of benefit granted is wrong.

edit: okay, you edited while I was putting together the post. That said: you can do that with an AA too, and Enhanced Arrows will still stack.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, I forgot PF changed it and had to edit the post. :smalltongue:

I actually sort of liked the +5 better, though. Instead of options from a small list, I can just use my money to give the weapon whatever properties I want.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Yes, so compare it to EK.

Yes, EK is better, I think it is an established fact that Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 3/Arcane Archer 4/EK X is probably the best "arcane archer".

One of my personal favorite Archer builds is a Lore Warden Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 6. Not a dash of Arcane Archer.

However i feel that EK is more akin to a Wizard: you lose 2 caster levels, so you still have the highest level spells, no more than a level or two behind the wizard. Admittedly, you have a more martial bent.

HOWEVER, compared to a similar archer with largely low level spells (such as a ranger) or with no spells at all (a fighter) an Arcane Archer is superior. People ask for advice on optimizing archer fighters, archer rangers, archer monks, and even archer rogues. To varying degrees these builds can be "optimized", or are considered "optimized".

YET, Arcane Archers have a bad reputation, are considered "unoptimized", and if you bring one to an optimized table ,you are going to get derisive sneers at best. If you bring an archer ranger though, thats cool. Hell, if you bring an archer fighter, people will be okay with it.
An Arcane Archer? You get laughed at.

My point is that there is a HUGE double standard, and the Arcane Archer is NOT as unoptimized as people make it out to be. From the perspective of the wizard ,yes, he is weak, as are most martial characters. Yet from the fighter or ranger's perspective, the Arcane Archer is more powerful.

[Benly]

Yeah, I forgot PF changed it and had to edit the post. :smalltongue:

I actually sort of liked the +5 better, though. Instead of options from a small list, I can just use my money to give the weapon whatever properties I want.

Eh, the +5 inevitably leads to people just going "lol, doesn't stack, cast GMW instead". Sort of like you did. :smalltongue: A magic item as a class feature isn't worthwhile unless it stacks with what you already have; PF AA does that, so I'm okay with the feature. I do think the class could do with a broader range of options, though.

My overall feeling on the PF AA is that it's not awful but not particularly great either. If you want to do the thing that the class does ("dedicated archer with a sideline of some arcane magic"), it lets you do that - which is, admittedly, faint praise, but it's better than some classes and PrCs manage, so there's that.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

It's better than fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue, monk, paladin, cavalier and gunslinger.

It is definitively worse than Druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, oracle, bard, magus, inquisitor and alchemist.

It sounds as though your assessment of its mediocrity is accurate. Yet, half the classes I listed are still considered to be preferred over arcane archer despite those classes limited abilities. No one ever says "make an arcane archer". When people say they want to make an AA, however, they get told to make a ranger or fighter. Arcane archer still seems to me to be a solid "tier 4" class, perhaps even a low 3.

I just don't understand how someone can call an arcane archer weak or unoptimized, and then recommend a "weaker" class.

If a fighter, ranger, or paladin can be "optimal" as far as an archery build goes, why not the arcane archer? Why the double standard?

In essence: if archery with a sideline of arcane magic is faint praise, and that praise is still better than what can be said of half the base classes and many prestige classes, why recommend those options as "superior" when they are demonstrably inferior?

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

As for why someone who wants to play a good archer would be interested in spells... really?
Really.

cast spiderclimb
But it's not archery

Or casting Blur on yourself?
It's not archery

Or Expeditious Retreat?
Not archery.

or Gravity Bow?
Magic Archery. This one is ok. Rangers can do that, too.

How about Overland Flight?
Not helping being good at archery

Archery: The art of shooting arrows


Or if all else fails, and everything has hit the fan and you get a guy charging you, and you haven't any arrows left, or your bow is sundered...
Shocking Grasp in your spellstoring Dagger?
Totally not archery at all. Seriously. Are you kidding me?

Most of the effects you mentioned can be obtained through magic gear.
On the other hand, spells can't replicate feats.

I understand (really) that added versatility IS good.
But it's not archery.

If you want to be versatile at the expense of your archery skills, just go full wizard.

[Baroncognito]

What about Magus to Arcane Archer?

[CTrees]

Heh, Hungry Ghost/Zen Archer Monk + Empyreal Sorcer -> Arcane Archer

It'd be funny, anyway.

Actually I'm tempted to make that as an NPC...

[Baroncognito]

I don't see how you'd be allowed to make a Hungry Ghost/Zen Archer monk, seeing as they both replace purity of body.

[CTrees]

Qiqong/zen archer. Meh, wasn't paying enough attention when posting (and was posting from mobile, as I am now)

[Empedocles]

I see no reason not to use duskblade for 3.5 or magus for Pathfinder to qualify for arcane archer instead.

However, in 3.5 at least, the overall best "archer" is probably a warlock. You can shoot from 250 feet away at 1st level, all your ranged attacks are touch attacks, and you have some other nifty abilities.

[Larpus]

What about Magus to Arcane Archer?
I've contemplated this build before, because I wasn't liking how many spellcasting levels I would lose by going Fighter X/Wizard Y.

I didn't get to actually make the character (campaign got canned), but comparing the options I noticed that you're way better for spellcasting levels.

Sure, you qualify a level later when compared to Fighter 6/Wizard 1, but you start with your whole "mage warrior" thing way earlier and smoother and you start your AA career with two 3rd level spells and four 2nd and 1st level spells as opposed to the one first level spell you'd have from Wizard 1, or three 1st level spells and two 2nd level spells Wizard 4 would give you.

So yeah, I guess it sounds like the best way to get into AA, even if you do lose the main Magus draw of casting while you beat stuff up for some levels and might be a rather unoptimized Magus overall, definitely sounds fun.

[Waker]

Magus to Arcane Archer sounds like it would work well. Arcane Duelist would work well I think as well.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Really. Blah Blah Stuff. play wizard 20

All of those examples however help an archer massively. You're telling me that if you play an archer character, you don't want Overland Flight? You don't want spiderclimb or gravity bow?

Sure you can be facetious and tell me "its not archery" but casting spells makes your archery better, and you can't really deny that. IF you compare a non spellcasting archer to an Arcane Archer, their function is the same: they shoot bows and arrows at people.
However, the AA has a third dimension to his abilities beyond "I shoot my bow at X". This makes an AA a superior build in most respects, and it isn't treated as such.

I also feel its pretty obvious that if I play an Arcane Archer, I am not looking to sacrifice my ability with a bow for the versatility wizard 20 provides. I am looking to supplement my abilities with a bow by using abilities that bend reality. Again, saying to play a Wizard 20 instead is facetious. I think its pretty obvious that is not the goal here.

I am merely trying to show that AA is not as horrible as everyone says, and that it is actually viable, more so than most typical archery builds and classes.

[stack]

Its a shame the myrmidarch archetype for the magus (and all the Ultimate Combat Magus archetypes, really) where so gimped. It could have been the arcane archer as a baseclass/archetype, making everything work nicely.

Still probably the best route into AA though, as far as keeping a consistent theme. I would see if the DM would let you scrap the myrmidarch and just sub ranged spellstrike for normal, reducing your melee capacity in exchange for range.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

some of do organized play, so asking our DM to handwave things inst really an option.

[navar100]

It is not a requirement to play the most powerful character you can ever possibly be. Everyone might as well play Pun-Pun. Everybody wins. "How about a nice game of chess?"

The only thing that matters is if your particular character build is fun for you and functions well enough for the game you're playing. Whether it could have been "better" is irrelevant. Fine tune min/max to optimize an extra "+1" or something? Great! Be upset because you cannot do ability X that is just so awesome? Get over it.