Help with Manyshot

[Hypersmurf]

All static additions are added twice, all variable additions are onl/y used once. That is the general rule, and I've never seen anything that would gainsay it.

Doesn't quite apply here. For example, the +1d6 Fire damage from a Flaming bow is variable, but it would affect each arrow...

-Hyp.

 

[Bozidar]

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that a feat doesn't have to be used ALL the time for it to be worthy. But a low hp archer will get some mileage out of this (remeber rangers dropped from d10 to d8 as well) if he wants to. The fact is a mobile archer is still harder to hit than a still one. Also, not evry rival is going to be tripping, disarming, etc.

Basically, I'm a believer that a feat doesn't have to "be on" all the time to be useful. Different strokes and all that.

but the reason i started this was because this feat is given to the ranger at high level, not a low HP archer. It's given instead of another melee attack, that the other ranger-paths get.

I just think it's a little underpowered by comparison.. no biggie I have a better understanding of what it's used for, but this is probably going to be one of 3.5's most mis-used feats (at least by those who don't read this board)

 

[iwatt]

but the reason i started this was because this feat is given to the ranger at high level, not a low HP archer. It's given instead of another melee attack, that the other ranger-paths get.

I just think it's a little underpowered by comparison.. no biggie I have a better understanding of what it's used for, but this is probably going to be one of 3.5's most mis-used feats (at least by those who don't read this board)

I don't know. I've gotta rogue seriously considering taking this feat. Not all rogues take the melee build. Besides, unless you give up both spellcatsing and skill points, you won't have that high a hp threshold as a ranger.

 

[Thanee]

I'd prefer Rapid Shot for the ranger as a freebie (it's more similar to TWF), but since he gets Manyshot for free there is no reason not to use it everytime a situation comes up (you will also be less hesitant to "waste" a full-attack action for a move and a standard action (<- I love it, that they removed those stupid partial actions )).

I just wouldn't choose the feat usually, and I guess it will be one of the really rare feat choices all in all.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Camarath]

I just think it's a little underpowered by comparison.. no biggie I have a better understanding of what it's used for, but this is probably going to be one of 3.5's most mis-used feats (at least by those who don't read this board)

Well let us look at one way you could benefit from this feat say you are a high level rogue/ranger archer you can combine this feat with Improved Feint to feint and attack in the same round so with your Flaming, Shock, Frost, Corrosive, Wounding Bow (1d8+ Damage Mod + 4d6 Elemental + 1 con damage) you would take -8 to attack to get (if you hit) 4d8 + 16d6 Elemental + Damage Modx4 + 4 con damage + sneak attack (target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC) vs. your target if you successfully bluffed them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well let us look at one way you could benefit from this feat say you are a high level rogue/ranger archer you can combine this feat with Improved Feint to feint and attack in the same round so with your Flaming, Shock, Frost, Corrosive, Wounding Bow...

From the 3.5 SRD:

Feinting in Combat: You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively).

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

From the 3.5 SRD:

Feinting in Combat: You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively).

-Hyp.

That is right I forgot about that, thank you Hypersmurf. I guess in that case one could use Quicker than the Eye to get the effect I looking for. IMO it would be a better choice as well since it is a standard spot vs. bluff check rather than a bluff vs. sense motive + BAB.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I guess in that case one could use Quicker than the Eye to get the effect I looking for. IMO it would be a better choice as well since it is a standard spot vs. bluff check rather than a bluff vs. sense motive + BAB.

QttE as written would work, yes... just make sure your DM hasn't "updated" the language for 3.5

-Hyp.