Weird Swift Hunter Help

[Efrate]

All 1st party sources barring dragon available. But see below.

First background. Playing in a very low op game right now, with 2 major changes over normal DnD. All spells, SU, and Sp abilities don't exist, and classes that have them do not either, they are auto traded for ACFs or just don't exist. Ability to use magic as a thing was forgotten in the past, but may be rediscovered as we progress, I am operating on the assumption that it won't. Magic items and such exist from ages gone by, but no one has them or makes them anymore. So going to ye ol magic mart for as something as simple as a cure light wounds potions is NOT a thing.

Party is me Scout 2/ranger 1, going swift hunter into highland stalker(for now), a barbarian that doesn't charge nor have pounce, a homebrew medic that can make heal checks to heal given massive amounts of time (think normal rest via healing, but over like 4 hours instead of all day), and bard who has bardic music which works as EX now, and no spells.

Part is currently level 3, and I am facing a conumdrum, I have no idea what feat to take, nor if swift hunter is worth it. Stongheart halfling, with PBS and Precise Shot, and luck of the dice has led me to have the only magic weapon in the party, and ancient +1 shortbow that gives a bit of platinum on critical hits.

I know this is drastically different from normal 3.5, but is there anything with the goal of highland stalker and using greater manyshot eventually being the best I could hope for for combat, that is going to help me? I am semi seriously considering taking Open Minded cause my points are so tight for a skillmonkey role and my PRC requirements, but there has to be something better.

1. Is swift hunter worth it considering I am going to get at best a +1d6 skirmish and +2 to favored enemy for a feat because of the plan to PrC out at 6 or 7?
2. Is there any other option for a ranged martial that has to be within 30 feet to be effective? I'm pondering mounted archery, though a base ranger companion with no buff spells nor magic gear is going to be notoriously difficult to keep alive.
3. Should I just say forget swift hunter and highland stalker and work towards order of the bow initiate?
4. Travel Devotion is likely a no. Nightsticks, and turn undead since clerics are gone are a definite nope, so even if I can argue it its once a day only. Maybe for boss fights it might be worthwhile. Leaning away though.


I want to be able to provide reasonable ranged damage, handle the roles of scout and trap finder.

This is also a maritime campaign, though we are marooned on Dino island right now, but swim as a skill as well as both use rope and profession sailor have all been massively useful, and we will hit the water again given time.

I know tier 5/6 isn't a great place to be looking for options, but its what I am guessing we are with the restrictions. Any help would be appreciated.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd just go scout 4/ranger X. Highland Stalker doesn't upgrade anything, compared to ranger; you lose your good reflex save and two skill points per level, for what amounts to some ability to ignore difficult terrain. If you want that, take a level in Swordsage, and use Step of the Wind.

Open Minded is horrid; if you absolutely must have skill points, human with Nymph's Kiss is the way to go. Saced Vow > Vow of Poverty > Nymph's Kiss is available at first level, and gets you some neat stuff. Vow of Poverty is made for low-magic games; in this case, you lose your magic weapon, but you get (Ex) resistance bonuses to saves, enhancement bonuses to ability scores, natural armour, energy resistance, mind shielding, even freedom of movement and regeneration, at very high levels.

Iirc Greater Manyshot does not allow you to get multiple stacks of skirmish damage, so I don't see the synergy with Swift Hunter. Rapid Shot is what you want. You can move + attack by taking a level in swordsage, using Sudden Leap at lower levels, and maybe Evasive Reflexes; at higher levels, you can use Press the Advantage. Triggering Improved Skirmish is a bit trickier, but you can get it anyway, and hope you get enough 5' steps from Evasive Reflexes.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'd just go scout 4/ranger X. Highland Stalker doesn't upgrade anything, compared to ranger; you lose your good reflex save and two skill points per level, for what amounts to some ability to ignore difficult terrain. If you want that, take a level in Swordsage, and use Step of the Wind.

Open Minded is horrid; if you absolutely must have skill points, human with Nymph's Kiss is the way to go. Saced Vow > Vow of Poverty > Nymph's Kiss is available at first level, and gets you some neat stuff. Vow of Poverty is made for low-magic games; in this case, you lose your magic weapon, but you get (Ex) resistance bonuses to saves, enhancement bonuses to ability scores, natural armour, energy resistance, mind shielding, even freedom of movement and regeneration, at very high levels.

Iirc Greater Manyshot does not allow you to get multiple stacks of skirmish damage, so I don't see the synergy with Swift Hunter. Rapid Shot is what you want. You can move + attack by taking a level in swordsage, using Sudden Leap at lower levels, and maybe Evasive Reflexes; at higher levels, you can use Press the Advantage. Triggering Improved Skirmish is a bit trickier, but you can get it anyway, and hope you get enough 5' steps from Evasive Reflexes.

Before Travel Devotion was discovered, Greater Manyshot was the only way to get better stacks of skirmish damage. The feat description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot) explicitly says you get precision damage with each arrow fired.

Given that you don't threaten with a ranged weapon, I don't see how a game without magic will enable you to activate skirmish with Evasive Reflexes. And Nymph's Kiss has no mechanical prerequisites other than the exalted requirement of being a goody good character filled with goodness. Vow of Poverty is likely going to be a massive crunch on an already feat starved character concept, even in a no magic game.



That said, with the general build restrictions in place, Scout 4/Ranger 16 is probably still the best choice. You aren't really gaining anything for Highland Stalker other than skirmish progression which you will gain anyway with swift hunter.

The main benefit of swift hunter will be to apply skirmish damage to enemies immune to precision damage. A common trap a lot of DM's fall into when doing "no magic" games is keeping monsters that end up as Total Party Wipes because they don't have the magic items to deal with them (construct, oozes, incorporeal undead, etc). With that in mind, your favored enemies of choice should likely be undead, plants, elementals, constructs, and whatever else your DM likes to use the most. Unless of course he has explicitly indicated to you common enemy types, in which case pick those types instead.

Another reason to stick with ranger is, since you are losing spellcasting anyway, the ranger Champion of the Wild ACF from Complete Champion will net you free feats at Ranger 4, 8, 11, and 14. Most of the "feat tax" archery feats are on that list so be sure to take a look there.

EDIT: Also, since I just noticed you have an aquatic themed game. Stormwrack has an option for rangers to allow them to track in the water. And if you somehow manage to wrangle a race with a swim speed, you can trade Woodland Stride for an aquatic variant that functions in difficult water terrain. The short list includes "shallow coral, kelp beds, ice-choked waters, sargasso, and similar obstacles."

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd just go scout 4/ranger X. Highland Stalker doesn't upgrade anything, compared to ranger; you lose your good reflex save and two skill points per level, for what amounts to some ability to ignore difficult terrain. If you want that, take a level in Swordsage, and use Step of the Wind.

This is solid advice, OP. I'd've suggested the same.


Open Minded is horrid; if you absolutely must have skill points, human with Nymph's Kiss is the way to go. Saced Vow > Vow of Poverty > Nymph's Kiss is available at first level, and gets you some neat stuff. Vow of Poverty is made for low-magic games; in this case, you lose your magic weapon, but you get (Ex) resistance bonuses to saves, enhancement bonuses to ability scores, natural armour, energy resistance, mind shielding, even freedom of movement and regeneration, at very high levels.

This, unfortunately, doesn't work with the listed campaign restrictions. Exalted feats are (su) abilities.

I will echo that open minded is a pretty bad feat unless you absolutely, desparately need those extra skill points for some reason. If you were playing a straight-up fighter then -maybe- it'd be okay but on anything else, absolutely not.


Iirc Greater Manyshot does not allow you to get multiple stacks of skirmish damage, so I don't see the synergy with Swift Hunter. Rapid Shot is what you want. You can move + attack by taking a level in swordsage, using Sudden Leap at lower levels, and maybe Evasive Reflexes; at higher levels, you can use Press the Advantage. Triggering Improved Skirmish is a bit trickier, but you can get it anyway, and hope you get enough 5' steps from Evasive Reflexes.

You've misremembered. GMS is -the- go-to way for getting multiple iterations of skirmish damage in a turn. It's practically a swift hunter class feature.

That said, a warblade or swordsage dip for sudden leap alone is worthwhile for most martial types and you get a few more neat tricks besides.I'd go warblade for the bigger HD and better refresh mechanic.


OP, I wouldn't necessarily take the barb's lack of pounce as a sign of poor optimization. The spirit totem ACF is a (su) ability.

Domain feats are (sp) abilities so that's guaranteed out.

OotBI is a terribly designed class. A standard action for a single attack with precision damage is not a terribly effective option. Maybe if you can get the DM to allow sneak attack to trigger with it regardless of whether the foe is flat-footed it'd be worth a dip. Mind, that's the CW version. If you're looking at the Sword and Fist version, however, that's a pretty good class. Might be worth dropping swift-hunter but it's close to call.


Now, if I might be so presumptuous as to ask a question; what happened to all the permanent magic items? I can see all the wands, staves, scrolls, and potions getting used up in fairly short order if all the crafters disappeared overnight but magic swords, armor, cloaks, jewelry, gloves, etc don't go anywhere or lose value over time. For the economy surrounding them to collapse would require the supply or demand (or both) to take a nose-dive. I suppose that, if the event that led to magic being forgotten was something so cataclysmic as to shatter interstate trade and seriously depopulate the region/world, it could be believable but otherwise it strikes me as a world-building error. Just curious.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The feat description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot) explicitly says you get precision damage with each arrow fired.
You've misremembered.
Alright, my bad. Nice feat, that.


Given that you don't threaten with a ranged weapon, I don't see how a game without magic will enable you to activate skirmish with Evasive Reflexes.
Clearly, you're using a spiked gauntlet, elvencraft longbow (clashes a bit with the existing weapon, but okay), or other melee weapon to threaten, or perhaps a special ability that allows threatening with ranged weapons (there aren't many, I'll grant you that, but you only need the one 5' step). It's not perfect, certainly, that's why you rely on Swift Jump primarily, but Evasive Reflexes does double duty as defensive feat, and qualifies you for Ranged Threat (regrettably a Dragon feat). Anyway, Greater Manyshot makes the whole business moot.


And Nymph's Kiss has no mechanical prerequisites other than the exalted requirement of being a goody good character filled with goodness. Vow of Poverty is likely going to be a massive crunch on an already feat starved character concept, even in a no magic game.

This, unfortunately, doesn't work with the listed campaign restrictions. Exalted feats are (su) abilities.
I know Nymph's Kiss has no requirements, but it synergizes nicely with vows. VoP is worth it for the ability increases, (Ex) abilities, and certain exalted feats, such as Nymph's Kiss and Nemesis (which make the Vow pay for itself feat-wise), Exalted Companion, and maybe Sacred Strike (if ruled to work with skirmish). Of course, just like Evasive Reflexes, it's not that relevant, because of the second quote. It's easy to forget about that :smallmad:.

Also note that ranger spellcasting is traded for an ACF, probably Champion of the Wild, so a scout 2/ranger 4 can pick up Point Blank Shot with a ranger bonus feat (then get Manyshot at ranger 6, and Greater Manyshot at level 9 or level 10). Getting the right feats at convenient moments is a bit tricky, with the scout and ranger bonus feats happening at level 4+.

[Darrin]

1. Is swift hunter worth it considering I am going to get at best a +1d6 skirmish and +2 to favored enemy for a feat because of the plan to PrC out at 6 or 7?


Yes, particularly the part about getting precision damage on your favored enemies.



2. Is there any other option for a ranged martial that has to be within 30 feet to be effective? I'm pondering mounted archery, though a base ranger companion with no buff spells nor magic gear is going to be notoriously difficult to keep alive.


Crossbow Sniper (PHBII) gives you +1/2 Dex bonus on damage to targets within 30', although you may have issues with Manyshot (which assumes you're using a bow). Deadeye (Dragon Compendium) adds Dex bonus on damage within 30'. A dip into Hit-and-Run Fighter (Drow of the Underdark) gets you Dex on damage to flat-footed targets within 30'.

Ask your DM if he's willing to overlook the errata on skirmish, which doesn't allow it to be used while mounted. Historically, that was the *best* way to skirmish.

Also... ask your DM about the Bone Bow in Frostburn: "A bone bow functions as a composite longbow with regard to applying the user’s Strength bonus to damage done with arrows shot from it." Some people think this means it auto-adjusts to your Str bonus, while others think it just means you have to pay +100 per point of Str bonus.



3. Should I just say forget swift hunter and highland stalker and work towards order of the bow initiate?


No, stay away from Order of the Bow Initiate, unless it's the 3.0 version. Yes, stick with Highland Stalker, but only for 2 levels. It's faster to get +1d6 skirmish that way than waiting through four more levels of Scout/Ranger.



4. Travel Devotion is likely a no. Nightsticks, and turn undead since clerics are gone are a definite nope, so even if I can argue it its once a day only. Maybe for boss fights it might be worthwhile. Leaning away though.


Then Greater Manyshot is probably your best bet for racking up skirmish damage.

Ok, so... 3rd level feat, but no Travel Devotion? Hrrmm. I'd probably work towards Sense Weakness (Draconomicon), which lets you ignore up to 5 points of DR, which is pretty darned useful on an archery build, maybe even moreso in a low-magic campaign.

Well, ideally we want to get Greater Manyshot ASAP, and while Champion of the Wild can get us Manyshot at Ranger 4, that means it's not available for your Combat Style at 6th. So we kinda have to take that at Ranger 6, and we need Scout 3 for Swift Hunter, so... first nine levels would have to be Scout 3/Ranger 6, take Greater Manyshot at 9th, then take Scout 4 to pick up Improved Skirmish. From there, Highland Stalker 2, then finish out your career with eight more levels of Ranger.

1) Scout 1. Feat: PB Shot. Bonus: Precise Shot.
2) Scout 2.
3) Ranger 1. Feat: Weapon Focus Longbow. Bonus: Track. Favored Enemy: Undead.
4) Ranger 2. Bonus: Rapid Shot.
5) Ranger 3. Bonus: Endurance.
6) Scout 3. Feat: Swift Hunter.
7) Ranger 4. Bonus: Combat Expertise (Champion of the Wild)
8) Ranger 5. Favored Enemy: Constructs.
9) Ranger 6. Bonus: Manyshot. Feat: Greater Manyshot.
10) Scout 4. Bonus: Improved Skirmish.
11) Highland Stalker 1.
12) Highland Stalker 2. Feat: Sense Weakness (Draconomicon).
13) Ranger 7.
14) Ranger 8. Bonus: Improved Rapid Shot (Champion of the Wild)
15) Ranger 9. Feat: Woodland Archer (Races of the Wild)
16) Ranger 10.
17) Ranger 11. Bonus: Improved Precise Shot. Bonus: Far Shot (Champion of the Wild)
18) Ranger 12. Feat: Plunging Shot or EWP Bone Bow.
19) Ranger 13.
20) Ranger 14. Bonus: Ranged Pin (Champion of the Wild)

Give that a try.

[Doctor Awkward]

1) Scout 1. Feat: PB Shot. Bonus: Precise Shot.
2) Scout 2.
3) Ranger 1. Feat: Weapon Focus Longbow. Bonus: Track. Favored Enemy: Undead.
4) Ranger 2. Bonus: Rapid Shot.
5) Ranger 3. Bonus: Endurance.
6) Scout 3. Feat: Swift Hunter.
7) Ranger 4. Bonus: Combat Expertise (Champion of the Wild)
8) Ranger 5. Favored Enemy: Constructs.
9) Ranger 6. Bonus: Manyshot. Feat: Greater Manyshot.
10) Scout 4. Bonus: Improved Skirmish.
11) Highland Stalker 1.
12) Highland Stalker 2. Feat: Sense Weakness (Draconomicon).
13) Ranger 7.
14) Ranger 8. Bonus: Improved Rapid Shot (Champion of the Wild)
15) Ranger 9. Feat: Woodland Archer (Races of the Wild)
16) Ranger 10.
17) Ranger 11. Bonus: Improved Precise Shot. Bonus: Far Shot (Champion of the Wild)
18) Ranger 12. Feat: Plunging Shot or EWP Bone Bow.
19) Ranger 13.
20) Ranger 14. Bonus: Ranged Pin (Champion of the Wild)

Give that a try.

One issue I have with your setup is putting off Swift Hunter until level 6 and Improved Skirmish until level 10. Also Plunging Shot assumes reliable flight which probably won't happen in his campaign.

I'd recommend do this for the first six levels instead:

1) Scout 1 - Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot (H)/Skirmish +1d6, Trapfinding
2) Ranger 1 - Track (B), Favored Enemy (undead), Wild Empathy
3) Scout 2 - Weapon Focus (longbow)/Battle Fortitude +1, Uncanny Dodge
4) Scout 3 - Fast movement +10 ft, Skrimish +1d6/+1 AC, Trackless Step
5) Scout 4 - Swift Hunter (B), Skirmish +2d6/+1 AC, Favored Enemy (constructs)
6) Ranger 2 - Improved Skirmish/Rapid Shot (B)

Then finish out with Highland Stalker and Ranger.

You'll get much better damage output at lower levels, and be able to pick up Greater Manyshot when it becomes relevant.

[Efrate]

Thanks for the replies. I was also unaware of skirmish not working with mounts, thanks for that. The above build looks good, I will likely go with that. I guess ranger it is after scout 4, any highly notable acf I should take? Also companion ideas (something that flies?) Or trade it out?

[Doctor Awkward]

Thanks for the replies. I was also unaware of skirmish not working with mounts, thanks for that. The above build looks good, I will likely go with that. I guess ranger it is after scout 4, any highly notable acf I should take? Also companion ideas (something that flies?) Or trade it out?

Ranger Animal companions aren't very good, since you are at half your ranger level to determine their abilities. Player's Handbook II has Distracting Attack. You can give up your animal companion to treat any enemy you hit with any attack as flanked until someone attacks it. It's good if you have a rogue in the party.

Also the skill trick Spot the Weak Point is great on swift hunters. Once per combat you can resolve your next attack as a touch attack. Manyshot only uses one attack.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Also the skill trick Spot the Weak Point is great on swift hunters. Once per combat you can resolve your next attack as a touch attack. Manyshot only uses one attack.
Greater Manyshot uses multiple attacks; that's probably why it gets multiple precision damage. Regular Manyshot still works with Spot the Weak Point, but you're giving up quite some damage to use it. Also, I don't think GMS has an option to use 'regular' Manyshot. It simply changes the way the feat works.

[Doctor Awkward]

Greater Manyshot uses multiple attacks; that's probably why it gets multiple precision damage. Regular Manyshot still works with Spot the Weak Point, but you're giving up quite some damage to use it. Also, I don't think GMS has an option to use 'regular' Manyshot. It simply changes the way the feat works.

If it simply changes the way the feat works, then it is still a single attack, albeit one that uses multiple rolls. The first line of text in Greater Manyshot is "When you use the Manyshot feat...", so I don't see how it could be both Manyshot and not-Manyshot.

At worst, a DM will say "No, I don't want you using Spot the Weak Point in conjunction with that feat" in my game. Which is an, "Oh well."

But RAW it works perfectly fine. EDIT: And the fact that you have to spend a standard action to set it up is plenty of a balancing factor.

[Darrin]

One issue I have with your setup is putting off Swift Hunter until level 6 and Improved Skirmish until level 10.

I don't quite see how 6th is so much horribly worse than 5th. What's the point of getting Improved Skirmish at 9th if you can't use it? The fastest way to get Greater Manyshot working is Scout 3/Ranger 6. Once you've got a reliable way to move + shoot multiple arrows, then you can use the Scout's bonus feat at 10th. Your method means waiting until 12th to get Greater Manyshot.



Also Plunging Shot assumes reliable flight which probably won't happen in his campaign.

Hence why I added "or EWP Bone Bow". Yeah, reliable flight might not be available, but if it was, 18th is high enough he should be able to afford it.


Thanks for the replies. I was also unaware of skirmish not working with mounts, thanks for that.


I highly advise you to ignore the errata. It's not as overpowered as the designers thought, particularly when you try to untangle all the stupid things they forgot to fix in the mounted combat rules.



I guess ranger it is after scout 4, any highly notable acf I should take? Also companion ideas (something that flies?) Or trade it out?

I'm quite fond of the Spiritual Connection ACF (Complete Champion), but that's probably unavailable in this campaign. And the half-progression on the Ranger animal companion means it's mostly a bloodsmear waiting to happen. Take the Distracting Attack ACF (PHBII). If you need a companion, take the Wild Cohort (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) feat.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't quite see how 6th is so much horribly worse than 5th. What's the point of getting Improved Skirmish at 9th if you can't use it? The fastest way to get Greater Manyshot working is Scout 3/Ranger 6. Once you've got a reliable way to move + shoot multiple arrows, then you can use the Scout's bonus feat at 10th. Your method means waiting until 12th to get Greater Manyshot.

No, my method is Manyshot at level 8 (Ranger 4 bonus feat), and Then Greater Manyshot at level 9. If anything, Sense Weakness is delayed, which is far less important.

My judgement of level 5 being superior in all ways than level 6 is purely from personal experience. Assassin vines, Vampire Spawn, ghasts, and the like are all encounters in the CR 5 range that are made much less of a headache when skirmish works on them.

And how will improved Skirmish not work at level 6? You only need to move 20 feet, and Scout 3 gets you +10 to your movement speed. If he wasn't small, he could do it in the same round he Tumbles.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If it simply changes the way the feat works, then it is still a single attack, albeit one that uses multiple rolls. The first line of text in Greater Manyshot is "When you use the Manyshot feat...", so I don't see how it could be both Manyshot and not-Manyshot.

At worst, a DM will say "No, I don't want you using Spot the Weak Point in conjunction with that feat" in my game. Which is an, "Oh well."

But RAW it works perfectly fine. EDIT: And the fact that you have to spend a standard action to set it up is plenty of a balancing factor.
Manyshot doesn't say it's one attack; it just says both arrows use the same attack roll. By default, firing two arrows at the same target, each doing regular damage, is two attacks. Hence, Spot the Weak Point would only apply to the first shot. I mean, if we're going to argue technicalities, we might as well go all the way :smalltongue:.

Regardless of how Manyshot works, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your DM that multiple arrows, aimed at multiple targets, with separate attack rolls, and separate damage rolls, are anything but multiple attacks. Despite the fact that it wouldn't be unbalanced.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Firstly, I have a Scout/Swift Hunter handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?473666-New-Scout-Handbook)! You should take a looksee.

Firstly, I'm going to agree that Highland Stalker isn't worth it-- it's a useful option if Swift Hunter isn't available due to book restrictions or whatnot, but the Ranger is equal or superior in every category.

Thanks for the replies. I was also unaware of skirmish not working with mounts, thanks for that. The above build looks good, I will likely go with that. I guess ranger it is after scout 4, any highly notable acf I should take? Also companion ideas (something that flies?) Or trade it out?
Skirmish not working with mounts in an errata-based change, and an unfortunate one-- that was by far the easiest way to Skirmish, and a highly thematic one at that. You can, RAW, make a DC 20 Ride check to mount your horse as a free action, then another DC 20 check to dismount as a free action on the other side, leaving you 10ft away from where you started, enough to make a full attack. It's insane, but there you go. Outside of that, yeah, Greater Manyshot is the way to go, though not getting it until 9th is sad. It might be worth splicing in a Fighter level at 7th (when your BAB will be +6) for the sole purpose of picking it up early.

For the Ranger side of things...

I'd pick the TWF combat style instead of archery, as you're already going to have those feats.
Definitely ditch the animal companion. Distracting Attack (PHB 2) is a solid choice, adding a minor debuffing effect to your attacks (enemies you hit are considered flanked). Personally, I kind of like Urban Companion (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a), which trades your animal companion for a familiar... a tougher, easier to replace, no-consequences-for-its-death, scales-mostly-with-ECL, uses-all-of-its-master's-many-skills familiar. Alternately, you can take Wild Cohort at any point when you want a sturdy animal companion; it's usually just a hit die behind the Druid's.
Spells should be replaced with the bonus feats via the Champion of the Wild ACF in Complete Champion, which gives you a few choices off a solid list.

[Doctor Awkward]

Manyshot doesn't say it's one attack;



Sure it does.


Benefit
As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).

For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of -6 for three arrows and -8 for four).

Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired.




it just says both arrows use the same attack roll. By default, firing two arrows at the same target, each doing regular damage, is two attacks. Hence, Spot the Weak Point would only apply to the first shot. I mean, if we're going to argue technicalities, we might as well go all the way :smalltongue:

Regardless of how Manyshot works, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your DM that multiple arrows, aimed at multiple targets, with separate attack rolls, and separate damage rolls, are anything but multiple attacks. Despite the fact that it wouldn't be unbalanced.

I'm confused then, are you now arguing that Spot the Weak Point does not work with regular Manyshot anymore? Because that's not what you said above.

And in the end my point is still that this is not only functioning RAW, but it's not overpowered at all. So house-ruling against this is pretty much a DM responding to you saying, "Hey look at this neat thing I can do once per combat." with, "Stop having fun dude, sheesh."



For the Ranger side of things...

I'd pick the TWF combat style instead of archery, as you're already going to have those feats.
Definitely ditch the animal companion. Distracting Attack (PHB 2) is a solid choice, adding a minor debuffing effect to your attacks (enemies you hit are considered flanked). Personally, I kind of like Urban Companion (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a), which trades your animal companion for a familiar... a tougher, easier to replace, no-consequences-for-its-death, scales-mostly-with-ECL, uses-all-of-its-master's-many-skills familiar. Alternately, you can take Wild Cohort at any point when you want a sturdy animal companion; it's usually just a hit die behind the Druid's.
Spells should be replaced with the bonus feats via the Champion of the Wild ACF in Complete Champion, which gives you a few choices off a solid list.


He can't pick TWF for Ranger, because the list of bonus feats from the Champion of the Wild ACF is determined by the combat focus he choices at Ranger 2. If he picks TWF he won't have access to any of the archery feats. It's the Archery Focus that gets him Greater Manyshot by level 9.

Urban Companion also uses half of your effective ranger level to determine it's powers, so it's not any better on a ranger than a regular animal companion is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

He can't pick TWF for Ranger, because the list of bonus feats from the Champion of the Wild ACF is determined by the combat focus he choices at Ranger 2. If he picks TWF he won't have access to any of the archery feats. It's the Archery Focus that gets him Greater Manyshot by level 9.
I guess you can get it a level early that way, at the cost of wasting earlier feats. Your call.


Urban Companion also uses half of your effective ranger level to determine it's powers, so it's not any better on a ranger than a regular animal companion is.
For determining the abilities of the companion, yes-- but it's a familiar; that just means Speak with Master and a bunch of (Su) abilities you're not getting under these houserules anyway. Using the master's HP, BAB, skills, and saves is just part of the base familiar feature.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Sure it does.

I'm confused then, are you now arguing that Spot the Weak Point does not work with regular Manyshot anymore? Because that's not what you said above.

And in the end my point is still that this is not only functioning RAW, but it's not overpowered at all. So house-ruling against this is pretty much a DM responding to you saying, "Hey look at this neat thing I can do once per combat." with, "Stop having fun dude, sheesh."
I don't think that's sufficient to call it a single attack. Part of the reason is that 'attack' is ambiguous: it refers to an action used to attack, and a sub-action that involves an attack and damage roll. For example, a "full attack" is an attack (the full-round action), but a full attack contains pseudo-actions that are also "attacks", which can be individually modified into trips, disarms etcetera. In this case, you're adding an attack to your Manyshot attack.

And yes, when I wrote that earlier reply, I was taking it on trust that StWP and MS work together, but I hadn't specifically looked up the feat.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't think that's sufficient to call it a single attack. Part of the reason is that 'attack' is ambiguous: it refers to an action used to attack, and a sub-action that involves an attack and damage roll. For example, a "full attack" is an attack (the full-round action), but a full attack contains pseudo-actions that are also "attacks", which can be individually modified into trips, disarms etcetera. In this case, you're adding an attack to your Manyshot attack.

And yes, when I wrote that earlier reply, I was taking it on trust that StWP and MS work together, but I hadn't specifically looked up the feat.

That's an incredibly willful misreading of the basic combat rules of D&D in order to support your presupposed conclusion.

"The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." (Rules Compendium, pg. 5)


General:
Attack:
Making an attack is a standard action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack)
...
Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using.
...
If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage. Roll the appropriate damage for your weapon.

Specific:
Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot)
As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).

For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of -6 for three arrows and -8 for four).
Spot the Weak Point Functions on your next attack.

Exception:
Greater Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot)
"When you use the Manyshot feat, you can fire each arrow at a different target instead of firing all of them at the same target."

Spot the Weak Point
"If the check succeeds, your next attack against that opponent (which must be made no later than your next turn) is treated as a touch attack."


The only thing that is not explicitly covered by the rules is how firing arrows at separate targets interacts with Spot the Weak Point. This is the only thing that would have to be adjudicated by the DM.

In this case, the specific wording of Spot the Weak Point also leaves this open to interpretation, as it gives no hard limit to how many opponents you may roll against with one single standard action (even though this conflicts with the general rule regarding skill uses being standard actions, this could be a specific exception to that rule), but on the other hand the skill trick was clearly not written with the intent to use multiple attacks against different targets in mind, since in a full attack action, your next attack would be the first made in the series. You run into similar problems using Spot the Weak Point in conjunction with Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz (which make multiple attacks against different targets during Spring Attack).

Even so, the most fair interpretation could arguably be that you can Spot against a single foe, and if you choose to attack different foes with your Greater Manyshot, only the target of your Spot the Weak Point is a touch attack.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's an incredibly willful misreading of the basic combat rules of D&D in order to support your presupposed conclusion.

[...]
The Rules Compendium will tell you this: "Attacking is a basic part of combat. Doing so takes a standard action or part of a full-round action (see Full Attack, below)". We can use this basic definition, along with your reasoning that the "attack" as a standard action is the general rule governing Manyshot, to rule as follows.


(1) Manyshot is a standard action, and a kind of "attack" standard action, like Trip. It obeys the general rule, that you quoted, and the RC rule "Doing so takes a standard action or part of a full-round action (see Full Attack, below)", except where the feat modifies the default "attack". Result: you can make multiple Manyshots as part of a full attack.

I think we agree that this is not what the Manyshot feat does. The general rule on making an attack is not appropriate here. You are using the standard action 'Manyshot', governed by the general rule "using a feat", not the standard action "attack", and they are not the same. That's the reason I'm splitting hairs on what an 'attack' is.

The distinction between "attack", the specific action, and other meanings of attack becomes relevant. There are a few options: any single attempt to hit and damage your target' (individual hits that are part of an AoO taken with Double Hit), anything that incorporates such attacks (standard attack, full attack, attack of opportunity, scorching ray), and anything that breaks a sanctuary (the aforementioned, but also fireball and wail of the banshee).

I think Manyshot is of the second type, a subcategory of the third. That leaves us to decide whether it incorporates single or multiple "attempts to hit and damage" (by my own definition), and that's tricky, because the feat gives two options.


(2) Manyshot is a standard action, but not a kind of "attack" standard action. It's a feat-use action, and it does incorporate a single attack, and that single attack is composed of multiple arrows. The fact that the arrows have separate damage, penetrate DR and miss chances separately, can even have separate damage type (by using different arrows), and generally don't share anything but the attack roll result, doesn't matter; it's one attack.

I think this is what you're ruling. You're saying the feat incorporates an attack - singular - in the first sense, and it's one attempt to hit, with the one attack roll, and the singleness of the attack is specifically overriden by the rule "Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired". Adding one arrow to the attack means expanding the single attempt to hit; it does not add an attack in the first sense. The alternative is below.


(3) Manyshot is a standard action, but not a kind of "attack" standard action. It's a feat-use action, and it does incorporate several attacks, like a full attack, and those attacks share nothing but an attack roll.

This is what I'm ruling. I think the feat calls itself an 'attack' in the second sense, which explains the singular, and then the separateness of the attacks is specifically overridden by the single attack roll. Adding one arrow to the overall 'attack' means adding an additional attack, the underlying assumption being one-attack-per-arrow-fired*.

*The feat doesn't explicitly say it, but I think that's the default.
Alright, I think that's about as much as I'll say on the subject, it's getting deep into 'categorize all the ways you can use word X' territory, and many RAW interpretation arguments have gotten lost in that particular swamp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html). As you've probably noticed, this is less a way to prove anyone is right, and more a theory that explains how we've drawn different conclusions from the same text. The OP will have to draw their own conclusions (sorry about the mess).

[Doctor Awkward]

The Rules Compendium will tell you this: "Attacking is a basic part of combat. Doing so takes a standard action or part of a full-round action (see Full Attack, below)". We can use this basic definition, along with your reasoning that the "attack" as a standard action is the general rule governing Manyshot, to rule as follows.


(1) Manyshot is a standard action, and a kind of "attack" standard action, like Trip. It obeys the general rule, that you quoted, and the RC rule "Doing so takes a standard action or part of a full-round action (see Full Attack, below)", except where the feat modifies the default "attack". Result: you can make multiple Manyshots as part of a full attack.

I think we agree that this is not what the Manyshot feat does. The general rule on making an attack is not appropriate here. You are using the standard action 'Manyshot', governed by the general rule "using a feat", not the standard action "attack", and they are not the same. That's the reason I'm splitting hairs on what an 'attack' is.

The distinction between "attack", the specific action, and other meanings of attack becomes relevant. There are a few options: any single attempt to hit and damage your target' (individual hits that are part of an AoO taken with Double Hit), anything that incorporates such attacks (standard attack, full attack, attack of opportunity, scorching ray), and anything that breaks a sanctuary (the aforementioned, but also fireball and wail of the banshee).

I think Manyshot is of the second type, a subcategory of the third. That leaves us to decide whether it incorporates single or multiple "attempts to hit and damage" (by my own definition), and that's tricky, because the feat gives two options.


(2) Manyshot is a standard action, but not a kind of "attack" standard action. It's a feat-use action, and it does incorporate a single attack, and that single attack is composed of multiple arrows. The fact that the arrows have separate damage, penetrate DR and miss chances separately, can even have separate damage type (by using different arrows), and generally don't share anything but the attack roll result, doesn't matter; it's one attack.

I think this is what you're ruling. You're saying the feat incorporates an attack - singular - in the first sense, and it's one attempt to hit, with the one attack roll, and the singleness of the attack is specifically overriden by the rule "Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired". Adding one arrow to the attack means expanding the single attempt to hit; it does not add an attack in the first sense. The alternative is below.


(3) Manyshot is a standard action, but not a kind of "attack" standard action. It's a feat-use action, and it does incorporate several attacks, like a full attack, and those attacks share nothing but an attack roll.

This is what I'm ruling. I think the feat calls itself an 'attack' in the second sense, which explains the singular, and then the separateness of the attacks is specifically overridden by the single attack roll. Adding one arrow to the overall 'attack' means adding an additional attack, the underlying assumption being one-attack-per-arrow-fired*.

*The feat doesn't explicitly say it, but I think that's the default.
Alright, I think that's about as much as I'll say on the subject, it's getting deep into 'categorize all the ways you can use word X' territory, and many RAW interpretation arguments have gotten lost in that particular swamp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html). As you've probably noticed, this is less a way to prove anyone is right, and more a theory that explains how we've drawn different conclusions from the same text. The OP will have to draw their own conclusions (sorry about the mess).

Between the two of us, the only one attempting to place the same word in multiple categories is you. If all seems confusing to you, it's because you are attempting to litigate your way through the rules in a way they were never intended to be read, and trying to apply a sense of nuance and subtlety that does not exist. The rules for D&D are always meant to be straight-forward and read with a judicious application of common sense. You are attempting to impose a pseudo-philosophical bent to rules interpretations that is not in any way helpful to resolving discrepancies. Simply put, the rules will tell you if a given thing is supposed to be read a certain way, and they will never require a juris doctor to make sense of them.

"What is an attack?"
An attack is the abstract result of your character's attempts to strike his or her opponent, as dictated by rolling 1d20 and adding relevant modifiers.
That's it.

If at any point a word requires special definition, then the rules will tell you, as they do in the Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) spell, where they clearly spell out what actions on your part will cause the spell to end. Note that they also saw fit to include, "For the purposes of this spell", so that you wouldn't get confused about the sudden apparent change in the definition of attack. An attack is an attack, it is a specific use of a standard action. A full attack is a special use of the full-round action that uses the general rules for attacking. Full attacks have their own rules that do not overlap, other than where they specifically say they do. Manyshot does not interact with full attack in any way because the feat tells you exactly what to do in the event that you have multiple attacks due to a high BAB. You load more arrows.

Manyshot goes out of its way to tell you that it is an attack. This is so you realize it is still using all of the rules that make it an attack (except as noted in the feat). Greater Manyshot goes out of its way to tell you that it is still Manyshot. You are still making one attack, you are just now resolving it like this instead of like normal, as per General -> Specific -> Exception. If you still insist on imposing your own subsystem onto the very clearly spelled out combat rules in order for this specific combination of abilities to not function the way you think they ought not to, then I really can't do anything else for you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Simply put, the rules will tell you if a given thing is supposed to be read a certain way, and they will never require a juris doctor to make sense of them.

"What is an attack?"
An attack is the abstract result of your character's attempts to strike his or her opponent, as dictated by rolling 1d20 and adding relevant modifiers.
That's it.
That's hilariously wrong, and so obviously contradictory to, say, the Dysfunction threads (9 threads plus a handbook), that it's hard to take it seriously.

By your reading, you can cast fireball as part of a full attack, because fireball is an attack. Good luck with that.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's hilariously wrong, and so obviously contradictory to, say, the Dysfunction threads (9 threads plus a handbook), that it's hard to take it seriously.

By your reading, you can cast fireball as part of a full attack, because fireball is an attack. Good luck with that.

That's a nice strawman. But the rules also clearly state that a fireball is a spell, which has it's very own heading under Standard actions that you are allowed to take in combat. Your rebuttal is again assuming that "The rules don't say I can't, therefore it could be true."

My entire point is that this is not how the rules are intended to be read, and it never was. I can only speculate on how many of the entries in however-many Dysfunction threads are built upon this false assumption, but I'd be pretty confident in declaring that the vast majority of discrepancies and arguments have at least some basis in it. Strictly speaking, the rules will tell you if you can do a thing with a given ability (like, I dunno, being allowed to use the full attack action with an Eldritch Glaive, but not with Eldritch Blast), and if a specific thing that would normally make perfect sense is not allowed (like not being able to cast more than one Quicken Spell per round, even though it used to be a free action).

Successfully activating Spot the Weak Point affects your next attack. When you use Manyshot, you are only making one attack. Greater Manyshot is an expanded use of Manyshot. Nothing in any of these even suggests that they wouldn't function together. This isn't a debate over whether or not DM's should be allowed to houserule these things out of their games. It's about what the rules say.

Trust me; the more common sense and designer intent you apply to the rules when you read them, the less dysfunctional they will be.