Core Rulebook Only Archer. What class to use?

[Enochi]

Hello all. I am trying to make an Archer for a campaign in which we are only allowed to use the core rulebook.

Which class is best to use? Any particular Race I should use or avoid?

Stats for this Campaign are going to be 18 descending.

Edit: Sorry Yes this is Pathfinder.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Well... If it's Core-only, I feel obligated to tell you that Archery isn't very good. There's simply no way to boost your damage. So that being said, I'd go for Bard or Rogue. Both will give you the skills and utility to be an asset out of combat, and Bard spells and Rogue Sneak Attacks will help you hold your end up in combat.

Edit: or of course be a Cleric.

[Feint's End]

Can you use Archetypes from other books? Or are you completely limited to core.

In the first case play a Zen Archer. They work fairly well with minimum support though the lack of Clustered Shot hurts any Archer really.

In the second case you have several choices though none of them is optimal. You could play a Ranger with the Ranged Combat style (kinda meh ... but depending on your favoured enemy you can deal decent damage), play a Bard (harder without Archetypes but still viable ... more of a support archer though), play a cleric (is ok I guess but worse in PF than in 3.5 since there is no Zen Archery feat ... also more caster than archer)

In and of itself the Ranger is probably the best choice since you are a decent Archer without spell support and you have lots of utility with minor spells and an animal companion to boot (should be a scout unless you get natural bond). From a pure powerperspective Cleric is better of course (not because because clerics are better archers but rather because they are full spellcasters). Next in line is Bard.

Choose whichever you like most. Again ... if Archetypes are allowed then go for Zen Archer.

[Enochi]

Yeah no archetypes allowed. What makes cleric such a good archer? And when does the build kick into gear? (Many times we don't get past 13 level)

And while Ranger with favored enemy is nice what makes it a better choice then say Paladin with smite evil? Or even a fighter with its static Weapon Training and Weapon Spec feats?

Just curious.

[John Longarrow]

I'd start with an Elf (bonus to dex), and grab 6 levels of fighter.
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot are your initial bonus feats. You may even want to toss in Weapon Focus (Comp Longbow).
Level 7, Wizard. Level 8+ Arcane Archer. Your only looking at getting those magic arrows out of it (stacks with bow for damage).
You can also grab Weapon Specialization for +2 to damage, but this isn't all that great, and it gets less valuable at higher levels.

In theory you can do a lot of damage (Greater Weapon Specialization for +4, STR for +4 on bow, +5 from bow and +5 from arrows) in a core only game. You still loose out to casters in the long run. Same problem fighters have.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Yeah no archetypes allowed. What makes cleric such a good archer? And when does the build kick into gear? (Many times we don't get past 13 level)

And while Ranger with favored enemy is nice what makes it a better choice then say Paladin with smite evil? Or even a fighter with its static Weapon Training and Weapon Spec feats?

Just curious.

Is this Pathfinder?

If it's not, it's basically the Cleric's array of buff spells more than closes the gap between the kits.

[Feint's End]

I'd start with an Elf (bonus to dex), and grab 6 levels of fighter.
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot are your initial bonus feats. You may even want to toss in Weapon Focus (Comp Longbow).
Level 7, Wizard. Level 8+ Arcane Archer. Your only looking at getting those magic arrows out of it (stacks with bow for damage).
You can also grab Weapon Specialization for +2 to damage, but this isn't all that great, and it gets less valuable at higher levels.

In theory you can do a lot of damage (Greater Weapon Specialization for +4, STR for +4 on bow, +5 from bow and +5 from arrows) in a core only game. You still loose out to casters in the long run. Same problem fighters have.

He is playing Pathfinder so Deadly Aim is a must-have. Also Fighters are horrible Archers since they have zero utility.


Yeah no archetypes allowed. What makes cleric such a good archer? And when does the build kick into gear? (Many times we don't get past 13 level)

And while Ranger with favored enemy is nice what makes it a better choice then say Paladin with smite evil? Or even a fighter with its static Weapon Training and Weapon Spec feats?

Just curious.

About cleric. While it is true that you only have mediocre bab you have access to the best buffing list in a core only game even from early levels. Who cares if you have worse bab ... you can always start of with a divine favour or bless to make up for it at early levels .. later spells like divine power push you beyond most martial classes. It was more extreme in 3.5 but they are still viable in PF though not what some people imagine when they think about an archer.

Well Paladin is limited by it's daily uses of smite evil. That's the main reason. It's true that your single target damage can be very good but so can the Rangers (favoured enemy has a fairly decent scaling after all). Difference is you are limited by other things. Paladin Archers are definitely good but since you don't have access to Divine Hunter which gets some other nice abilities which synergize well with ranged the core paladin is just on par with the Ranger and lacks behind in utility. Depends on playstyle though. I'd probably pick Rangers because ...

They are more versatile. That's the reason why they beat and always will beat fighters. Maybe a fighter has slightly higher damage 8 out of 10 times but there is so much more than damage to this game. As a Ranger you have a much better skilllist, better class features, a good spelllist with lots of utility and a great scout (your animal companion) who can be upgraded to a full blown martial character with natural bond.
You see .... if I say Rangers are better I don't neccesarily mean they are better in dealing damage (though as said they deal more than enough) but rather that they are an overall better class.

[John Longarrow]

Odd... Didn't see "PATHFINDER" in OP.

As for fighters being "horrible Archers since they have zero utility", the class is there for feats, not versatility. If the emphasis is on hitting things at range with an arrow/bolt, "zero utility" wouldn't come into the question. Could just say "Archers are a horrible idea as they don't cast spells"....

Truth is dropping a couple levels of full BAB with extra feats useful for hitting and hurting at range makes more sense for an Archer build than doing other things.

[Feint's End]

Odd... Didn't see "PATHFINDER" in OP.

As for fighters being "horrible Archers since they have zero utility", the class is there for feats, not versatility. If the emphasis is on hitting things at range with an arrow/bolt, "zero utility" wouldn't come into the question. Could just say "Archers are a horrible idea as they don't cast spells"....

Truth is dropping a couple levels of full BAB with extra feats useful for hitting and hurting at range makes more sense for an Archer build than doing other things.

Fair point. Horrible might have overdone it especially since fighters are horrible anyways. However you can have all relevant archery feats on a human ranger by level 3 and afterwards your bonus feats take care of it. fighter just doesn't cut it in comparison.

I doubt that 4 levels of fighter for a minor to hit and damage bonus is worth losing the better class features, spells and animal progression. Also losing out on favoured class Boni hurts (considering you'll likely be human this probably not an issue though).

[John Longarrow]

Ranger is by far a better class, but the OP was asking for help hitting/hurting with a bow/crossbow. That's why I was pointing towards Arcane Archer (horrible prestigue class, but OK if you ONLY want to hit with a bow, now really use its abilities).

I was also trying to come up with a decent way to build an archer that doesn't eat all of the character's feats. That kills versatility almost as much as bad skill points/class skills. As this is an archer build, Sorcerer is almost a better way to go than wizard if going arcane archer (more true strikes / more castings of cats grace / use higher level slots for either when shooting at long range), but I personally hate loosing out on any versatility in casting, especially when dipping.

Too bad Warlock isn't on the table...:-(

[Gemini476]

Is Arcane Archer 2 still a decentish dip for Imbue Arrow in Pathfinder, or was that nerfed from 3.5? You could get some fun effects from it, I remember.

[Psyren]

With CRB-only, I would go Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 3/AA 4/EK +7. This gets you 9th-level spells, +16 BAB, and all kinds of cool tricks for your arrows to up your damage.


Odd... Didn't see "PATHFINDER" in OP.

While "Core Rulebook" could technically refer to the PHB, his capitalization leads me to believe he is referring to the Pathfinder product which specifically has that name. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

Is Arcane Archer 2 still a decentish dip for Imbue Arrow in Pathfinder, or was that nerfed from 3.5? You could get some fun effects from it, I remember.

It was always less so a decent dip and more so "the only way to get anything worthwhile out of AA" but PF AA is significantly better (it actually advances casting on some levels). But the ability itself had some changes, though one could argue they'd match how many DMs would rule it anyways. Observe:

D20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneArcher.htm):
At 2nd level, an arcane archer gains the ability to place an area spell upon an arrow. When the arrow is fired, the spell’s area is centered on where the arrow lands, even if the spell could normally be centered only on the caster. This ability allows the archer to use the bow’s range rather than the spell’s range. It takes a standard action to cast the spell and fire the arrow. The arrow must be fired in the round the spell is cast, or the spell is wasted.

D20PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/arcane-archer):
At 2nd level, an arcane archer gains the ability to place an area spell upon an arrow. When the arrow is fired, the spell's area is centered where the arrow lands, even if the spell could normally be centered only on the caster. This ability allows the archer to use the bow's range rather than the spell's range. A spell cast in this way uses its standard casting time and the arcane archer can fire the arrow as part of the casting. The arrow must be fired during the round that the casting is completed or the spell is wasted. If the arrow misses, the spell is wasted.


Relevant difference being that 3.5 AA can theoretically circumvent some casting times. I wouldn't allow that but it's there. Other than that tho, PF AA has 4 levels of casting + full BAB and abilities at the cost of 1 casting, so it's much better than 3.5 AA in that sense. Not only that but Greater Magic Weapon doesn't make the abilities it gives your bow completely redundant like in 3.5 (3.0 legacy, that). So it's usually better, losing one less level of casting, but mind the details.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you'll be going to high levels, Psyren's Arcane Archer build is your best bet, definitely. It is a shame they nerfed imbue arrow, but at least now you can go 4 levels and only lose 1 CL. The "uses spell's casting time" thing can be exploited just as the 3E version's "always a standard action" could be (I loves me some arrows of Guards and Wards), though probably not in core only PF.

Out of core, PF has this already amazing spell called Emergency Force Shield at 4th level. It's an immediate action hemisphere of force to block line of effect for spells / attacks, so...it's like a higher level wings of cover that wizard can learn and can protect the whole party. With Imbue Arrow, you can also use it offensively (range is normally personal :smallbiggrin: ) *and* still as an immediate action to trap foes in the force hemisphere and interrupt and ruin their turns. So awesome!

Since you're stuck with core...Antimagic Field is probably your best bet for it. Of course, that won't come until level 14 or so, which is why if you DON'T expect to play till high levels / it's a low level game.... basic ranger archer might be better. Especially if bestiary 1 counts as core (don't see how it doesn't...). With that, you can get a kickass flying Roc companion to ride on while shooting arrows, though it doesn't become good until druid level 7 (Ranger 10 for you). Till then....horse, I guess.

EDIT: Elf is the best race for the Arcane Archer build. For the ranger build, none of the core races are especially helpful sadly. You'd want Dex and Str (none get that...in any paizo sourcebook) or at least Dex and Wis (plenty non-core get it, none in core). I guess you'd just go Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc. The latter might be the best one of the 3 long-term, human's nice at level 1 for the initial archery feat crunch. Later on, you realize core has few good feat options for martials and you don't need human any more.