Anyone know how to make a good Archer

[Slaved]

By taking the feat.
As soon as you qualify for it. A scout 3/ranger 3 with Swift Hunter can take it as his regular 6th level feat. Where did you get that 4d6/4 AC nonsense from?

He is talking about the feat in Complete adventurer while you are talking about the feat in Complete scoundrel. They both have the same name but are very different.

 

[Darklone]

By taking the feat.
As soon as you qualify for it. A scout 3/ranger 3 with Swift Hunter can take it as his regular 6th level feat. Where did you get that 4d6/4 AC nonsense from?

Well, I just looked up the feat in Comp Adv. page 192. Does not look like nonsense to me

Where do you have your feat from? Perhaps another source?

Edit: Apparently. Thanks Slaved.

 

[Darklone]

Apart from that, lion's charge calls for a ranger 8+ to cast it, so no, not every spellcaster can whoop it out of the wrist.

Right... but Rangers have this spell, druids have Wild Feats to do it, clerics use domain spells... while the TWF dude needs about 20 feats to be feasible

 

[VonRichthofen]

You should really try and learn the rules, Dark.

How would I take an Epic feat into a non-epic build, my friend?

It is of course a normal, non-epic feat from Complete Scoundrel, (p. 78) with 2d6/+1 AC as prereq.

 

[Darklone]

You should really try and learn the rules, Dark.

How would I take an Epic feat into a non-epic build, my friend?

If you would nicely lead your eyes to my first questions, you might notice that was what I was asking very politely but sadly not very directly

 

[VonRichthofen]

If you would nicely lead your eyes to my first questions, you might notice that was what I was asking very politely but sadly not very directly

No Sir, you didn't.

You Sir, had it that it was the 4d6/+4 AC prereq that was not met by a scout 3.

That is something very different from even remotely meaning something along the line of: That's an Epic feat, you can't take it pre-21!

So no offense meant Sir, but please don't try and call me inattentive - had you written what you now are trying to convince me you actually wanted to say, I surely wouldn't have responded the way I did.

Well, it doesn't matter. We're off-topic.

Peace to all.

 

[dagger]

At high levels, you can move your base landspeed of 40 ft. and fire four arrows with Greater Manyshot. That's an extra 28d6 skirmishing damage. Your AC will be at +6 in every round you moved at least 20ft.

I thought the scout damage only applied to one arrow?

 

[VonRichthofen]

I thought the scout damage only applied to one arrow?

Not if you have Greater Manyshot, as mentioned in the build.

 

[Darklone]

No Sir, you didn't.

You Sir, had it that it was the 4d6/+4 AC prereq that was not met by a scout 3.

I asked how you do it. I didn't try to convince you with anything.

No "You should really try and learn the rules, Dark." or "nonsense".

Simply: "Sorry, how do you...?"

A simple answer would have been sufficient.

 

[VonRichthofen]

I asked how you do it. I didn't try to convince you with anything.

No "You should really try and learn the rules, Dark." or "nonsense".

Simply: "Sorry, how do you...?"

A simple answer would have been sufficient.

Now don't try to call me a liar and get away with "Oops, I'm off-topic."

Please don't expect me to make this a personal flame war.
Yet since keeping peace is not the done thing for you Sir, we might as well go along with this squabble:

Sir, I humbly beg to take note of the fact that I didn't call you a liar - strange thing you had this association, don't you think so?

And to repeat my point, dreary though it may be: A simple question about the core of the problem would have indeed been sufficient, Sir.

Try as you may, you got this one wrong, plain and simple.

Sir is not a gracious loser, I have understood this by now.
Anything else Sir wishes to tell me?