How optimal is a sneak attack archer?

[Masakan]

from my understanding unless you have a means of getting the crossbow sniper feat, you shouldn't bother trying to sneak attack with archery. If thats not the case then is there a way to do it or am i just overestimating how dangerous it is to play archer at 30 feet?

[Solo]

I think the Blink spell helps tremendously for a sneak attack archer. A ring of Blinking at higher levels is very useful.

[ketaro]

I think people also like doing it with Skirmish damage so long as you manage being able to move 10 ft and still fullattack.

Which is actually way easier than trying to meet SA requirements as skill checks are some of the easiest things to pump up and you only need a DC 40 tumble check to move 10ft as a free action 5ft step action.
Both means are pretty much the same in the end. *shrugs*

[Masakan]

I think people also like doing it with Skirmish damage so long as you manage being able to move 10 ft and still fullattack.

Which is actually way easier than trying to meet SA requirements as skill checks are some of the easiest things to pump up and you only need a DC 40 tumble check to move 10ft as a free action 5ft step action.
Both means are pretty much the same in the end. *shrugs*

Fair enough, but in my case skirmish just isn't an option. In any case as a general whole is the extra damage from utilizing sneak attack in archery, worth the risk your taking doing so?

[SorO_Lost]

from my understanding unless you have a means of getting the crossbow sniper feat

You don't need the Feat but as far as choices go it's one of the best thus an obvious choice.

Also stealth archer is basically a choice rooted in trading off some dpr and ease of SA for survivability which means you're more likely to see the next level. When dungeon crawling it's a little limited but for wilderness/urban areas it's pretty awesome.

[Masakan]

from my understanding unless you have a means of getting the crossbow sniper feat

You don't need the Feat but as far as choices go it's one of the best thus an obvious choice.

Also stealth archer is basically a choice rooted in trading off some dpr and ease of SA for survivability which means you're more likely to see the next level. When dungeon crawling it's a little limited but for wilderness/urban areas it's pretty awesome.

Does sound good but...generally i would be better off sticking with regular archery wouldnt i?

[SorO_Lost]

Nah.

Not only does SA increase your damage, but by trying to hide you also strike their Flat-Footed AC and they are unable to use an Immediate Action to respond to it. Plus if you move afterwards you don't take a penalty to Hiding, or just crank that Hide heck and accept the penalty anyway, allowing you to use guerrilla tactics to harry your enemies to death instead of relying on gorilla tactics.

[Masakan]

Nah.

Not only does SA increase your damage, but by trying to hide you also strike their Flat-Footed AC and they are unable to use an Immediate Action to respond to it. Plus if you move afterwards you don't take a penalty to Hiding, or just crank that Hide heck and accept the penalty anyway, allowing you to use guerrilla tactics to harry your enemies to death instead of relying on gorilla tactics.

So it can work...i can just forget about full attacking right?

[ketaro]

Perhaps. Rapid Shot can keep you up thru 10th lvl as if you were full attacking without feeling like you're sacrificing an attack. And then by then you can or already should get Splitting on your bow and now you're well outpacing full bab types that manage full attacks on most rounds but you still have a whole move action after.

So at the loss of full attacking ever, you either are doing just as many shots as a full attack, or twice as many, and then back to just as many by 20th with just rapid shot and splitting.

[SorO_Lost]

So it can work...i can just forget about full attacking right?

Until level 8 the Rogue doesn't even have a reason to use Full-Attack unless you deliberately pick up stuff or multiclass because he only has one attack. So for 40% of the game it's not really a concern anyway.

[phaedrusxy]

Nah.

Not only does SA increase your damage, but by trying to hide you also strike their Flat-Footed AC and they are unable to use an Immediate Action to respond to it. Plus if you move afterwards you don't take a penalty to Hiding, or just crank that Hide heck and accept the penalty anyway, allowing you to use guerrilla tactics to harry your enemies to death instead of relying on gorilla tactics.

So it can work...i can just forget about full attacking right?

greater many shot can solve that

[Solo]

So it can work...i can just forget about full attacking right?

Until level 8 the Rogue doesn't even have a reason to use Full-Attack unless you deliberately pick up stuff or multiclass because he only has one attack. So for 40% of the game it's not really a concern anyway.

Wait, what about Rapid Shot?

[SorO_Lost]

Without Human/Flaws you can't get Rapid Shot until level 3, or level 6 if you want Craven, or a lot later than that if you want Crossbow Sniper (which stacks with fierce for dex x1.5 to dmg), etc. The dependency on Feats is why a Fighter is better archer than a Ranger. Hence also my comment of "unless you deliberately pick up stuff or multiclass".

[Masakan]

I honestly see no reason to deny the use of flaws otherwise there is literally no point in going anything other then human, unless you want something super specific.

[Keldar]

I honestly see no reason to deny the use of flaws otherwise there is literally no point in going anything other then human, unless you want something super specific.

Rogues don't have BAB 1 at 1st, so flaws don't help get those feats.  Which brings it back around to "unless you deliberately pick up stuff or multiclass."   Besides, Flaws are an optional rule, these parts you can't assume they're in play for general advice.

What you really need to ask yourself is if you want to play a dedicated sneak attack archer or an incidental one?  It will require a significant investment and massaging of the build to do better at the task than a finesse Rogue that just happens to carry a short bow for special occasions.  Is 30 or 60 feet of range really worth the large investment and hassle to you?

[eggynack]

I honestly see no reason to deny the use of flaws otherwise there is literally no point in going anything other then human, unless you want something super specific.

Same reasons for non-humans as existed before, which were and are quite good.

[ketaro]

I honestly see no reason to deny the use of flaws otherwise there is literally no point in going anything other then human, unless you want something super specific.

Besides, Flaws are an optional rule, these parts you can't assume they're in play for general advice.

I thought flaws were an assumed yes when theorycrafting and giving advice unless OP states otherwise in the, yanno, OP?

[SorO_Lost]

What you really need to ask yourself is if you want to play a dedicated sneak attack archer or an incidental one?

Pretty much this.

I mentioned Full-Attack isn't really that big of a deal in the early game and got a response of FEATS!!!, when I brought how a stealth archer is Feat tight their like FLAWS!!!, except that really hasn't changed anything. Taking archer Feats makes you a better archer and you're not really telling anyone anything new. But the discussion is about a stealth archer and unfortunately without spamming arrow mind you're going to rely on your target being Flat-Footed to your attacks. And you'll have a -20 Hide penalty while doing so which makes landing that second attack pretty hard without some bonuses (like the dark template, either 18k or +1 la). It takes several things to come together to make this work, if you choose to start out as a pure archer and focus on being a pure archer that'll later pick up some SA dice they might get to use for the hell of it that's your business. But if you want to run around hidden and shooting people in the face for tons of damage, you are going to inevitably delay the archery side.

[Masakan]

What you really need to ask yourself is if you want to play a dedicated sneak attack archer or an incidental one?

Pretty much this.

I mentioned Full-Attack isn't really that big of a deal in the early game and got a response of FEATS!!!, when I brought how a stealth archer is Feat tight their like FLAWS!!!, except that really hasn't changed anything. Taking archer Feats makes you a better archer and you're not really telling anyone anything new. But the discussion is about a stealth archer and unfortunately without spamming arrow mind you're going to rely on your target being Flat-Footed to your attacks. And you'll have a -20 Hide penalty while doing so which makes landing that second attack pretty hard without some bonuses (like the dark template, either 18k or +1 la). It takes several things to come together to make this work, if you choose to start out as a pure archer and focus on being a pure archer that'll later pick up some SA dice they might get to use for the hell of it that's your business. But if you want to run around hidden and shooting people in the face for tons of damage, you are going to inevitably delay the archery side.

So it's like i thought if i want it to go smoothly, its pretty much gonna have to be one or the other.

[snakeman830]

The dependency on Feats is why a Fighter is better archer than a Ranger.

Depends.  Rangers get some sweet spells that augment archery.  Core Fighter vs. Core Ranger, you are most certainly correct, but Rangers get much better support outside of Core.