how to make an archer in pathfinder

[djwood]

I'm a new at pathfinder I didn't even opened the book yet so whats the difference between pathfinder and D&D 3.5 ?


and what would be the archer build in PD will it still be ranger all the way? (i'll usually play a sniper so that wouldnt hurt)


*note* I'm joining a group of 6 people and there about level 6 so I would imagine i'll start lvl 5

thanks

[Lappy9001]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook)is a good guide to some of the basic differences between the two systems. It's a little out-dated, though. I believe it was written before Archetypes were a thing (which are great).

It's generally a better idea to stick to one class rather than multiclassing as opposed to 3.5.

I would suggest a fighter with the archer archetype, a ranger, or possibly a rogue with the sniper archetype. If you haven't read the books yet (which I suggest you do, or at least skim the prd), archetypes are shown here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedCoreClasses.html).

[djwood]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook)is a good guide to some of the basic differences between the two systems. It's a little out-dated, though. I believe it was written before Archetypes were a thing (which are great).

It's generally a better idea to stick to one class rather than multiclassing as opposed to 3.5.

I would suggest a fighter with the archer archetype, a ranger, or possibly a rogue with the sniper archetype. If you haven't read the books yet (which I suggest you do, or at least skim the prd), archetypes are shown here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedCoreClasses.html).

thank you friend!

[BWR]

If you meet a lot of evil things, especially big evil things with lots of hp, the paladin archer is great. Ranged smites can be ridiculously effective.
The zen archer monk archetype is pretty good at just about every level. Flurry with your bow, use unarmed damage for arrows, Wisdom instead of Dex for attacks and more.

[Fouredged Sword]

Gunslinger has a crossbow archtype called the bolt ace. It is really good for long range sniping and still doing decent damage. Take a look.

[djwood]

Gunslinger has a crossbow archtype called the bolt ace. It is really good for long range sniping and still doing decent damage. Take a look.

thank you friend :)

[djwood]

If you meet a lot of evil things, especially big evil things with lots of hp, the paladin archer is great. Ranged smites can be ridiculously effective.
The zen archer monk archetype is pretty good at just about every level. Flurry with your bow, use unarmed damage for arrows, Wisdom instead of Dex for attacks and more.

thank you very much!

[Extra Anchovies]

Archery got a huge buff from 3.5 to PF. The most notable boosts in power are Deadly Aim, which is ranged Power Attack, and Clustered Shots, which lets you total your damage against a target from all of your attacks and then apply DR once.

For classes, I'd suggest Ranger (cuz Improved Precise Shot at level six, five levels before anyone else can get it), a Slayer (same reason as Ranger, if you take the Style Feat talents), or Paladin (Smite, which is now more of a Mark, affects every attack you make against the chosen target until that target dies, so the more attacks the better). All three can be great archers, pick whichever one you like best.

[Snowbluff]

Archery got a huge buff from 3.5 to PF. The most notable boosts in power are Deadly Aim, which is ranged Power Attack, and Clustered Shots, which lets you total your damage against a target from all of your attacks and then apply DR once. These are only buffs if you are a total noob. The only time I was ever accused of rocket tag in 3.5 was playing an archer.

Archery needed less feats to take in the first place. PBS is a terrible feat tax. Adding useless feats like Clustered Shots is the opposite of addressing the style's problems. :smalltongue:


For classes, I'd suggest Ranger (cuz Improved Precise Shot at level six, five levels before anyone else can get it), a Slayer (same reason as Ranger, if you take the Style Feat talents), or Paladin (Smite, which is now more of a Mark, affects every attack you make against the chosen target until that target dies, so the more attacks the better). All three can be great archers, pick whichever one you like best.
Nope. You go Samsaran Cleric (the only class this whole combo works with). Greater Named Bullet and Abundant Ammunition, and then Saddle Surge (Animal Domain for an Animal Companion) and Litany of the Righteous in combat. Trash everything regardless of your stats. Then, you're a full caster so you can do other things.

I have a friend who is playing an Arcane Archer with GNB and AA, and he's murdered the game.

[Psyren]

If you'd like to be an archer, rather than a T1 spellcaster who just happens to use a bow for lulz, I second Anchovies' advice.

[Extra Anchovies]

These are only buffs if you are a total noob. The only time I was ever accused of rocket tag in 3.5 was playing an archer.

Excuse me? Are you telling me that Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots are bad? Because they're not. Not at all. Low damage per hit and the subsequent issues with DR are two of archery's main weaknesses in 3.5; those feats solve both of those issues.

Also, yeah, archery is going to be feat-heavy. Pathfinder also handed out a lot more bonus feats to martial classes. Even without bonus feats you can assemble a pretty darn solid archery build on a character with at least average BAB. With ranger-progression bonus feats you can get into Snap Shot et. al. and still have room for a couple feats on the side.


If you'd like to be an archer, rather than a T1 spellcaster who just happens to use a bow for lulz, I second Anchovies' advice.

This. Clerics are the best archers, sure, but they're the best anything. It's also a hell of a lot easier to play a standard volley archer. Plus, clerics may be better archers than rangers, slayers, or paladins, but that doesn't make rangers, slayers, or paladins bad archers, which is what your (Snowbluff's) post seems to imply.

[Snowbluff]

Excuse me? Are you telling me that Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots are bad? Because they're not. Not at all. Low damage per hit and the subsequent issues with DR are two of archery's main weaknesses in 3.5; those feats solve both of those issues.
Bows can actively and easily switch out ammo types for penetrating DR. It's one of the advantages of the style. Avoid clustered shots if you know what you are doing and you aren't using massive damage rules.

Also, damage wasn't really solved. It helps, but 3.5 had a good share of feats, spell, equipment, and class features that could significantly improve an archer's abilities. Most people just weren't interested putting in the work.


With ranger-progression bonus feats you can get into Snap Shot et. al. and still have room for a couple feats on the side.
Snapshot is another nerf. Another feat for a feat starved style for something we used to be able to do with a spell (Arrow Mind) or bow mod (Elvencraft). Carry a spiked gauntlet if you need to do some CQC. You don't need 2 hands to operate your bow when it isn't your turn.



This. Clerics are the best archers, sure, but they're the best anything. It's also a hell of a lot easier to play a standard volley archer. Plus, clerics may be better archers than rangers, slayers, or paladins, but that doesn't make rangers, slayers, or paladins bad archers, which is what your (Snowbluff's) post seems to imply.

If you'd like to be an archer, rather than a T1 spellcaster who just happens to use a bow for lulz, I second Anchovies' advice. "Specialization is for ants." :smalltongue:

Seriously, if the only thing you do is archery, something has gone wrong with your character. Inquisitors, Wizards, and Rangers make good archers because they also have good skill points per level and the first two have some handy spells for other situations. Make sure to diversify your character a little bit. Anyone can do damage. You'll thank me when you arrive at a problem that can't be solved by sticking bits of metal in people.

EDIT: Half of the classes can pull some part of the combo, and that means they can skimp on feats that can be spent elsewhere. Unless you're going for overkill, you don't need much past Precise + Rapid Shot at higher levels.

[Psyren]

You can do more than "just archery" with a Ranger or Inquisitor easily. You don't need to be a Samsaran Cleric with Animal Domain blah blah. You won't be as powerful, but "less powerful" != "weak."

[(Un)Inspired]

I think the important question is, what would you like your character to be able to do other than bow stuff?

As you can see from the variety of suggestions, many classes can twing-twang decently enough. Who else do you envision your character as?

[djwood]

I think the important question is, what would you like your character to be able to do other than bow stuff?

As you can see from the variety of suggestions, many classes can twing-twang decently enough. Who else do you envision your character as?

that'S the thing I don't really know the possible types of archers that I can choose from but something helpful to my team.

So I don't really mind! haha

[Extra Anchovies]

that'S the thing I don't really know the possible types of archers that I can choose from but something helpful to my team.

So I don't really mind! haha

Well, do you know what your team is?

Also, taking a look at what fictional characters come to mind when you think "archer" can help you figure out what abilities you want on your character sheet.

[Ssalarn]

Hunter archers can be fun divine gishes with a powerful pet. The right teamwork feats get you additional attacks to compensate for your 3/4 BAB, and the pet can run interference to keep you from getting forced into melee. You also have 6+Int skills, which is awesome. Example build for players of all system mastery here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rh77?Hunter-Builds#18).

Slayer and Ranger both make great archers as well. I prefer Ranger due to his getting a built in mount; mounted archery is pretty much the best combat style in the game.

Inquisitor is another fun divine gish who's a natural archer. He has great skills, a solid spell list, and can stack a lot of damage onto each arrow.

Zen Archer, a monk archetype, is stupid good at archery. He gets basically every feat he needs handed to him, some abilities you can't get any other way, and he's very, very durable when built properly.

Paladin archers are a personal favorite of mine, but don't fall for the Divine Hunter archetype; even if the art shows a guy holding a bow, that archetype is terrible for dedicated archers and is really only good for thrown weapon switch-hitters.

[(Un)Inspired]

Hunter archers can be fun divine gishes with a powerful pet. The right teamwork feats get you additional attacks to compensate for your 3/4 BAB, and the pet can run interference to keep you from getting forced into melee. You also have 6+Int skills, which is awesome. Example build for players of all system mastery here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rh77?Hunter-Builds#18).

Slayer and Ranger both make great archers as well. I prefer Ranger due to his getting a built in mount; mounted archery is pretty much the best combat style in the game.

Can you define the way you are using the word best here? I think you might be mistaken but it's possible you are defining best differently than I am.

[Snowbluff]

Mounted Archery combines long range full attacks with a movement every round. After that, you can add Saddle Surge, which means the damage IS the best. That's why the cleric build does it.

[Ssalarn]

Mounted Archery combines long range full attacks with a movement every round. After that, you can add Saddle Surge, which means the damage IS the best. That's why the cleric build does it.

^^ Basically this. You have the largest guarantee of full attacks of any build, can combine full attacks with full movement without putting yourself in harm's way, and there are enough options in the game for protecting or upgrading your mount that there's little to no downside. Your damage is generally better than anything other than THF (and more reliable), cheaper than TWF, and has multiple cheap upgrades to scale it up quickly, like Bracers of Falcon's Aim, Gravity Bow, etc.

So you win on action economy, mobility, damage in most instances, reliability, and affordability.

[Extra Anchovies]

Hunter archers can be fun divine gishes with a powerful pet. The right teamwork feats get you additional attacks to compensate for your 3/4 BAB, and the pet can run interference to keep you from getting forced into melee. You also have 6+Int skills, which is awesome. Example build for players of all system mastery here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rh77?Hunter-Builds#18).

Hunter is nice. I've always been kind of unimpressed with their relative lack of to-hit and damage boosts, unlike the Inquisitor (judgement) or Slayer (studied target).


Slayer and Ranger both make great archers as well. I prefer Ranger due to his getting a built in mount; mounted archery is pretty much the best combat style in the game.

Indeed. Horses are actually pretty badass, too; they're the best choice for a non-beastmaster Ranger. Too bad they can't get Big Cat without trading away that style feat...


Inquisitor is another fun divine gish who's a natural archer. He has great skills, a solid spell list, and can stack a lot of damage onto each arrow.

Another advantage of the Inquisitor is that you can use either the +attack or the +damage judgement (or both from 8th level onwards); the best thing about judgement is its versatility. For more fun, pick up the Animal domain (Feather subdomain for the bonus to Perception), and nab a Roc companion. Flying, combat-capable (hint: grab enemies, fly upwards, let them fall, rinse and repeat) mount by level 10, or level 7 with Boon Companion. Mounted archery may be pretty much the best combat style in the game, but Flying mounted archery kind of is the best combat style in the game.


Zen Archer, a monk archetype, is stupid good at archery. He gets basically every feat he needs handed to him, some abilities you can't get any other way, and he's very, very durable when built properly.

Also it's got some pretty cool fluff along the lines of what 3.5's Order of the Bow Initiate was trying to be.


Paladin archers are a personal favorite of mine, but don't fall for the Divine Hunter archetype; even if the art shows a guy holding a bow, that archetype is terrible for dedicated archers and is really only good for thrown weapon switch-hitters.

Paladin archers are pretty darn cool, in large part (for me at least) because the class is usually not associated with ranged combat.

[(Un)Inspired]

^^ Basically this. You have the largest guarantee of full attacks of any build, can combine full attacks with full movement without putting yourself in harm's way, and there are enough options in the game for protecting or upgrading your mount that there's little to no downside. Your damage is generally better than anything other than THF (and more reliable), cheaper than TWF, and has multiple cheap upgrades to scale it up quickly, like Bracers of Falcon's Aim, Gravity Bow, etc.

So you win on action economy, mobility, damage in most instances, reliability, and affordability.

Wouldn't a build that could planar bind like 50 angels to attack for it each round be better? I dont think you even need any feats for that.

Wouldn't that make planar binder the best combat style?

[Ssalarn]

Wouldn't a build that could planar bind like 50 angels to attack for it each round be better? I dont think you even need any feats for that.

Wouldn't that make planar binder the best combat style?

9 level spellcasting is not a combat style, it's a way of life entirely apart from people who participate in menial tasks like actual combat. The PF Ranger has Combat Style feats; a combat style is something you could see represented by a collection of feats like this.

If I use the words "combat style" the unwritten subclause is "I am not talking about full casters, because they only stoop to needing a combat style when they feel like slumming".

[(Un)Inspired]

9 level spellcasting is not a combat style, it's a way of life entirely apart from people who participate in menial tasks like actual combat. The PF Ranger has Combat Style feats; a combat style is something you could see represented by a collection of feats like this.

If I use the words "combat style" the unwritten subclause is "I am not talking about full casters, because they only stoop to needing a combat style when they feel like slumming".

What is the exact definition of combat style that you want to use? It has to be something that can be represented by a series of feats?

[Psyren]

What is the exact definition of combat style that you want to use? It has to be something that can be represented by a series of feats?

Not hiding behind 50 angels would be a good start.

[Ssalarn]

What is the exact definition of combat style that you want to use? It has to be something that can be represented by a series of feats?

Combat Style: A method of fighting typically represented by a specific type or types of weapons and associated techniques, such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Two Handed Fighting, Archery, Mounted Archery, Mounted (Melee) Combat, Sword and Board, Dueling, Unarmed Combat, Natural Weapons, etc. Some classes/characters may have a combat style that combines two of the above techniques, or they may "switch hit" and advance their facility with two or more combat styles simultaneously.

Not A Combat Style: Things that don't require you to get your hands dirty, such as Summoning, AoE Blasting, BFC spells, Combat Avoidance (teleportation, planar travel, etc.), Compulsion, etc.

Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Monks, Rogues and similar classes always have at least one combat style (assuming base levels of competence).

Hunters, Magii, Inquisitors, Bards, and other 2/3 casters usually have a combat style. Some, like the Magus with Spell Combat, are naturally focused towards a specific or unique combat style due to their class abilities.

Wizards, Clerics, Oracles, and similar classes may have a combat style, but it's probably the least efficient option at their disposal. They're either "slumming" so they can swing by and say "Anything you can do, I can do better!", they like self-nerfing so the party doesn't catch on to how much better they are than their counterparts, or they lack the system mastery to realize that this is their worst option. Occasionally (dependent on level and wealth available in the current campaign), their combat style may be a fall back for when their casting is exhausted or they want to conserve spells for later.

[(Un)Inspired]

Combat Style: A method of fighting typically represented by a specific type or types of weapons and associated techniques, such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Two Handed Fighting, Archery, Mounted Archery, Mounted (Melee) Combat, Sword and Board, Dueling, Unarmed Combat, Natural Weapons, etc. Some classes/characters may have a combat style that combines two of the above techniques, or they may "switch hit" and advance their facility with two combat styles simultaneously.

Not A Combat Style: Things that don't require you to get your hands dirty, such as Summoning, AoE Blasting, BFC spells, Combat Avoidance (teleportation, planar travel, etc.), Compulsion, etc.

Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Monks, Rogues and similar classes always have at least one combat style (assuming base levels of competence).

Hunters, Magii, Inquisitors, Bards, and other 2/3 casters usually have a combat style. Some, like the Magus with Spell Combat, are naturally focused towards a specific or unique combat style due to their class abilities.

Wizards, Clerics, Oracles, and similar classes may have a combat style, but it's probably the least efficient option at their disposal. They're either "slumming" so they can swing by and say "Anything you can do, I can do better!", they like self-nerfing so the party doesn't catch on to how much better they are than their counterparts, or they lack the system mastery to relaize that this is their worse option. Occasionally (dependent on level and wealth available in the current campaign), their combat style may be a fall back for when their casting is exhausted or they want to conserve spells for later.

Interesting. That's a pretty comprehensive definition.

So would you say that a psion who's using telekinetic maneuver to grapple and crush enemies isn't using a fighting style? That really seems like a style of fighting, doesn't it?

[Ssalarn]

Interesting. That's a pretty comprehensive definition.

So would you say that a psion who's using telekinetic maneuver to grapple and crush enemies isn't using a fighting style? That really seems like a style of fighting, doesn't it?

Nope, seems more like BFC. It clearly doesn't meet the parameters for Combat Styles (typically represented by a specific type or types of weapons and associated techniques), and just as clearly does line up with Not A Combat Style (Things that don't require you to get your hands dirty).

[(Un)Inspired]

Nope, seems more like BFC. It clearly doesn't meet the parameters for Combat Styles (typically represented by a specific type or types of weapons and associated techniques), and just as clearly does line up with Not A Combat Style (Things that don't require you to get your hands dirty).

Can you explain why using magic isn't a combat style and why using weapons is? I think this is where I'm having trouble.

I thought that in this case the word style refers to a means of accomplishing somehting. I'm not totally clear on what the word combat means in this context though. Perhaps that's where my difficulties are lying?

I believe I see how you're trying to qualify this thing called "combat style" (although I could still be misinterpreting it) but I'm not sure why a combat style needs to be this thing you are defining it as.

[Ssalarn]

Can you explain why using magic isn't a combat style and why using weapons is? I think this is where I'm having trouble.

I thought that in this case the word style refers to a means of accomplishing somehting. I'm not totally clear on what the word combat means in this context though. Perhaps that's where my difficulties are lying?

I believe I see how you're trying to qualify this thing called "combat style" (although I could still be misinterpreting it) but I'm not sure why a combat style needs to be this thing you are defining it as.

I think you, like everyone else in this thread, get the distinction and are just enjoying the attention of someone entertaining your queries. I'm sorry if the commonly held understanding of "combat style" doesn't fit in your world view, but you're clearly intelligent enough to understand both the implication of the phrase and the need to differentiate it from spellcasting in order to have a conversation.

At this point, I think the OP's thread has been derailed enough. He came in looking for the answer to a specific question and I'd prefer to allow this thread to return to either providing him answers to the questions he's looking for, or fade away as appropriate to his needs. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I'd encourage you to start a new thread.

[(Un)Inspired]

I think you, like everyone else in this thread, get the distinction and are just enjoying the attention of someone entertaining your queries. I'm sorry if the commonly held understanding of "combat style" doesn't fit in your world view, but you're clearly intelligent enough to understand both the implication of the phrase and the need to differentiate it from spellcasting in order to have a conversation.

At this point, I think the OP's thread has been derailed enough. He came in looking for the answer to a specific question and I'd prefer to allow this thread to return to either providing him answers to the questions he's looking for, or fade away as appropriate to his needs. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I'd encourage you to start a new thread.

My friend you give my intelligence too much credit. There's no need for you to apologise however, I'm still trying to form a view on what constitutes "combat style" and why it should be differentiated from spellcasting and I appreciate your contribution to the idea.

If you're not interested in talking about the topic any further than I will refrain from diverting this topic any longer.

[Feint's End]

I suggest Zen Archer mainly because it is simple. You can go straight from 1-20 and max wis + put a decent value in dex and you are good to go. It's pretty awesome that you can't use Rapid Shot because this makes the feat obsolete. Now you can have all the starting feats at level 3 (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Deadly Aim). Get Clustered Shot ASAP and then you have some freedom.

As for the best build I can think of? Zen Archer 3, Soulknife 7, Soul Archer 10 ... Pick Fighters Blade as soon as possible
This way you get:
-wisdom to attack and damage with a bow
-Level 20 Soularrows (in other words flexible +10 weapon .... +13 with a crystal focus)
-Some other neat tricks you can pull off with blade skills (up to imagination)

The second build is the one I'd play but it requires you to be familiar with psionics.

edit: note that both builds work equally fine from the start but the second build pulls miles ahead at about level 7 (Fighter's Blade comes online and you get wisdom to damage)

edit 2: HOLY COW ... I just realised that due to Form Mind Arrow you can actually go with a regular Soulknife and end up with a melee mind blade of +10 which can be used for ranged

If you pick focused offense now you can get wisdom to hit and damage too meaning you can use wisdom for both to hit and damage FOR BOTH ranged and melee ... and both with +10 mindblades

I think I just discovered the ultimate Soulknife Melee/Archer

You also get wisdom to AC due to being a monk and if you take Gifted Blade instead of Psychic Strike (don't worry ... you get psychic strike back from Soul Archer) you can even buff yourself with Inertial Armor

[Extra Anchovies]

I suggest Zen Archer mainly because it is simple. You can go straight from 1-20 and max wis + put a decent value in dex and you are good to go. It's pretty awesome that you can't use Rapid Shot because this makes the feat obsolete. Now you can have all the starting feats at level 3 (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Deadly Aim). Get Clustered Shot ASAP and then you have some freedom.

+1 for flurry of bows

[Ssalarn]

+1 for flurry of bows

If the fact that it doesn't come online until 6th level isn't an issue for you, you could always build a Sohei. They can flurry with a bow while wearing light armor and don't have the Zen Archer's restriction on using Rapid Shot and Manyshot, and they get Weapon Training like a Fighter (opening the door for Gloves of Dueling) to help mitigate the penalties. Plus, they get lots of mounted combat tricks and monk abilities that apply to any mount they ride, so they can go all kung-fu pegasus or gryphon (griffin?) while doing their archery thing.

[Snowbluff]

If you have to go monk, Sohei is much better.

[Feint's End]

If the fact that it doesn't come online until 6th level isn't an issue for you, you could always build a Sohei. They can flurry with a bow while wearing light armor and don't have the Zen Archer's restriction on using Rapid Shot and Manyshot, and they get Weapon Training like a Fighter (opening the door for Gloves of Dueling) to help mitigate the penalties. Plus, they get lots of mounted combat tricks and monk abilities that apply to any mount they ride, so they can go all kung-fu pegasus or gryphon (griffin?) while doing their archery thing.

Meh ... I think Zen Archer has the overall better setup and is smoother to play.

Also for the psionic build you need the wis to hit

[(Un)Inspired]

If you have to go monk, Sohei is much better.

Wow sohei sounds pretty cool. Does it combine well with qinggong monk at all?

[Ssalarn]

Wow sohei sounds pretty cool. Does it combine well with qinggong monk at all?

Not terribly well actually. It trades away basically every class feature it can't share with its mount, so anything you trade away for qinggong is something you're taking away from your mounted combat options. One of its strengths is also that it's less MAD since you can wear light armor and are less reliant on WIS, and that pretty much goes out the door if you want to go Qinggong.

[djwood]

Jsnsjsssnsmkssms