Talk:Flying Archer (3.5e Prestige Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Would it be feasible that a creature with flight and a high enough level of maneuverability (via wings or spell-like ability) woudl still be able to take this class without the actual Spell? --Theophenes 15:45, 1 May 2007 (MDT)

Wouldn't understand why it wouldn't, to be honest. -- Flession 18:53, 1 May 2007 (MDT)
If you would like to change this and add that in please go ahead. I agree, it is ridiculous to require fly if one can already fly, however then many of the class features do not become worthwhile... If you can figure out a good way to add that, please do. --Green Dragon 19:40, 2 May 2007 (MDT)
In the case of already-flying characters, you could replace the Spontaneous Fly class feature and the Flight Duration with upgrades to flight speed of me#aneuvrability. MorkaisChosen 06:57, 2 September 2007 (MDT)


I feel this class should have good reflex save. --Lord Dhazriel 23:28, 4 July 2008 (MDT)

i agree --Name Violation 18:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


I will adopt this in the morning. I will change the reflex save and I will make it more based on natural flying or any flying granted by non-magical means. --Sabre070 07:24, 5 December 2008 (MST)

Changed my mind. --Sabre070 01:55, 6 December 2008 (MST)

New Changes[edit]

I decided to change the requirements for the prestige class. The fly spell would have made it necessary to take 5 levels of wizard to take this class. The added BAB and removal of the fly requirement made this PrC more conducive to typical archer classes, the ranger in particular. It is also somewhat superfluous to have either the fly spell or natural flight because you could simply be a winged race and take only have a few levels of fighter or ranger.

As a result, the Flyboy class feature was added to give easy flight, and the other class features focus on flight to give the flying archer its own identity. - ThunderGod Cid 12:16, 18 June 2009 (MDT)


Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it is way to powerfull against non archers and flyers. --James 15:12, 23 July 2009 (MDT)

You can't just state a rating. You must justify your thought process. -- Jota 18:08, 23 July 2009 (MDT)
Even so, how is it overpowered? Any character that relies totally on melee weapons is totally unprepared (not to mention stupid), and at around 6th level (when this class becomes available) any party with a wizard can cast fly. Boom! Instant parity. Sure, you're not as fast as the archer, but it's not like he's untouchable. As I mentioned before, as well, there are many naturally flight-capable races, therefore giving someone the ability to fly at will at level 7 is hardly inconcievable. - TG Cid 18:45, 23 July 2009 (MDT)

Clarification of Double Shot and upgrades[edit]

So basically this ability lets you make a number of attacks (similar to a full attack, but limited not by BAB but by level in Flying Archer), with each attack at your highest BAB? If someone feels this is overpowering (and I'm not sure it is), perhaps one might take a -1 or -2 penalty to all attacks for each arrow? So 2 attacks would get -1 or -2, 3 attacks -2 or -4, and 4 attacks -3 or -6. --Ghostwheel 10:25, 24 July 2009 (MDT)

It's actually only one attack against a single five-foot square. In attacking the square (and not a specific target) you shoot two arrows together (or more if you are at a higher level) without an attack roll. This means you essentially automatically hit, but a Reflex save is allowed for half (thus making it subject to evasion, etc.) and thus balancing it out. So instead of firing four arrows at the same target individually (with progressively lower BAB), you fire four at the same time. Is that understandable? - TG Cid 12:52, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Ah, I see, makes sense. Just skimmed the PrC first time around, so didn't really understand it, but the class as a whole seems balanced from what I can see. Maybe even slightly underpowered, but the free flight and mobility makes up for it a bit. --Ghostwheel 12:55, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Do you think it should perhaps continue into epic levels (more than four arrows), or is it OK as given with the Enhance Arrow and such? - TG Cid 13:16, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Considering it is only 4d8+16 (or whatever--in any case rather weak), yeah. You could also add more spellcasting levels. Maybe like 6/10 (3/5; hell, I might be okay 8/10, although then you're catering the class more to spellcasters than melee people)? I mean, aside from the flight (which is very nice), there really isn't a lot of oomph, is there? -- Jota 13:24, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Not any less than a regular ranger, though (but that has more bearing on the weakness of the ranger than on anything else, I guess. So, what then, Pentashot, Hexashot, Heptashot, Octoshot, etc? It starts to lost its ring after a while... - TG Cid 13:30, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Another idea that might work better could be giving an option to substitute the spellcasting levels with bonus feats, like the Thrall of Demogorgon in BoVD. I think that would work a lot better, since you'd have the option of doing one or the other and not be locked into either. Furthermore, if you shift the levels in which you gain spellcasting (while keeping the bonus feats option) to level 2, 5, 8 and 10, you could give this class full BAB without having to worry about people dipping into it just for the full BAB coupled with a caster level increase. --Ghostwheel 13:30, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Sounds good. We'll go with that. - TG Cid 13:44, 24 July 2009 (MDT)
Glad I was able to help :-) Just be sure to add the bonus feats under the class abilities, that they must fulfill prerequisites, etc, so we don't end up with someone using them to pick up epic feats :-P --Ghostwheel 14:10, 24 July 2009 (MDT)


Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because This class is really geared toward power and exploiting the ranger advantage and covering its weaknesses. Any flight no matter how little is amazing for an archer just in terms of tactical support. -- 06:12, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I under stood everything described. Really well written. -- 06:12, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a It looks right, what else can you say.>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it -- 06:12, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because The whole thing works really well with the whole point of the class except that just because of the class nature that it would work better with a high reflex save. -- 06:12, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

RockJockey: Standards and Saves[edit]

Hey there, please follow these standards rather than making up your own. Saves are standardized into two forms in DnD: Poor Saves and Good Saves.
Table: Saves Standards
Level Saving Throws
Good Saves Poor Saves
1st +2 +0
2nd +3 +0
3rd +3 +1
4th +4 +1
5th +4 +1
6th +5 +2
7th +5 +2
8th +6 +2
9th +6 +3
10th +7 +3


It looks as though this class has been unused in nearly a decade. I remember seeing this when it was fresh and I was but a new player just exploring the possibilities of the game. That being said, I see a lot more potential for the class than is presented, thus I am adopting it --TyphonMagus (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (MDT)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!