Even with the red dragon scenario, a ranger has to see what the others on his team are doing. Swift quiver adds an average of 19 damage a round starting the round AFTER it's cast, 33.15 if using feats for sharp shooter (although would you be using the -5/+10 on an ancient red dragon?). Depending on the terrain, cover or lack thereof, and other party members, having two huge creatures friendly to your party might make all the difference. Yes, an ancient red dragon's breath weapon would destroy these huge snakes, but why would they be placed right next to one another when you can choose their location? If these creature take any, let alone multiple hits from the dragon that would otherwise be directed to a PC, that's a big win. The can be used for cover (3/4 cover due to their size) helping the PCs with their dexterity saving throws and AC. They can provide the help action. They can ready an attack in case the dragon flies or walks by to hit a PC. These are all tactical decisions that can and should be made on a case by case scenario. The snakes won't take out the dragon on their own, but that's not their purpose. Plop these bad boys down with the paladin, rogue, or fighter and see if they complain.
Its a little unclear but some dms may allow you to use it to duplicate purple worm poison for each shot. Most dragons are not immune to poison. 4 hits of purple worm poison is nothing to laugh at.
I am curious is it general design to make the high end features more than a bit lack luster on the ranger, or was it more fear of magical secrets on the bard that placed the spell at 5th level. On the greater strengths of summoning some table avoid them as a kind or 'let's not bog down encounter' pact.
I am curious is it general design to make the high end features more than a bit lack luster on the ranger, or was it more fear of magical secrets on the bard that placed the spell at 5th level. On the greater strengths of summoning some table avoid them as a kind or 'let's not bog down encounter' pact.
Swift Quiver gives the Ranger 4 attacks. It costs concentration and a spell slot, as well as using the bonus action. However, only the Fighter can do that and it's at level 20. Bard can take this spell with Magical Secrets at 10 and make a good archer but I don't really think it necessarily plays to the Bards strengths. I don't really think the late game stuff is lackluster but that's really just opinion.
So can: -a level 5 monk -a level 11 beastmaster (2 yourself and 2 your beast) -a level 11 horizon walker, provided 3 of those are on different targets -a level 11 gloomstalker, provided one of those attacks misses -a level 11 hunter, provided there are enough target close to each other -a level 11 fighter -any martial with extra attack and haste cast on them (Jeej for vengeance paladin and horizon walker)
(most of these would require PAM, CBE or TWF and all require the use of your bonus action)
Honestly, Having the 4 attacks at the cost of your bonus action and having to concentrate on a spell isn't broken in the slightest. Just as Wannyboy stated, there are dozens of ways that someone can get 4 attacks every turn long before Tier 4. I mean a Sorcerer/Warlock combo can get 4 at 5 (though they couldn't only do it so many times) and 6 attacks at Level 11. With a magical item, Warlocks can blast away with Eldritch Blast twice a turn so at Level 17 they can attack 8 times without expending any resources.
Just based on what benefits come with this spell, I do not think that it should be a 5th level spell. If a Horizon Walker Ranger took Crossbow Expert feat, they could cast Haste on themselves, get 3 attacks and a bonus action attack along with double speed, advantage on Dex Saves and increased AC. Based on that, I personally believe Swift Quiver should have been a 3rd Level spell instead of the level they made it. Sure they would get 4 attacks at Level 9 but it really isn't game breaking to let them do that since it costs them a spell slot, concentration and their bonus action to use it.
So can: -a level 5 monk -a level 11 beastmaster (2 yourself and 2 your beast) -a level 11 horizon walker, provided 3 of those are on different targets -a level 11 gloomstalker, provided one of those attacks misses -a level 11 hunter, provided there are enough target close to each other -a level 11 fighter -any martial with extra attack and haste cast on them (Jeej for vengeance paladin and horizon walker)
(most of these would require PAM, CBE or TWF and all require the use of your bonus action)
While all of these things you listed can get 4 attacks, most of them are situational. Casting haste on yourself skips an entire round of attacking. That means in order to make up for it, the ranger needs to keep it up and used for at least 3 rounds, 4 if using two weapon fighting, just to break even on casting it. Monk bonus action attacks are generally considered weaker because there aren't many official magic items that benefit unarmed attacks. This is also an issue for the beast master pet attacks. There are also no feats that help these attacks. This doesn't mean those aren't good features. It just serves to show how good 4 attacks with a main weapon attack is, especially if that weapon is magical and especially if that ranger has sharpshooter. Bards can nab this with magical secrets but otherwise the only other class that can get 4 main weapon attacks is the fighter at level 20.
Will it always be the best option? Probably not. Will it always be a very good option? Absolutely.
Again it only seems useful if in conjunction with an ability That adds damage to each attack. The things that come to mind are hunters mark, poison, enlarge/reduce, oathbow. you would need to find a way to bypass concentration for some of them (via another party member, magic item or glyph cheats ). so an magic weapon with poison seems to be worth it. an oathbow with purple worm poison has a potential of 4d8+12d6 + (4x12d6 (Dc19 saves for half)) Possibly adding in sharpshooterx4 and bracers of archery +8 Per turn you maintain concentration. In summary, I think it assumes high level magic enhancement to make it worth it (a very Wizards of the coast/MTG move if you ask me).
Again it only seems useful if in conjunction with an ability That adds damage to each attack. The things that come to mind are hunters mark, poison, enlarge/reduce, oathbow. you would need to find a way to bypass concentration for some of them (via another party member, magic item or glyph cheats ). so an magic weapon with poison seems to be worth it. an oathbow with purple worm poison has a potential of 4d8+12d6 + (4x12d6 (Dc19 saves for half)) Possibly adding in sharpshooterx4 and bracers of archery +8. In summary, I think it assumes high level magic enhancement to make it worth it (a very Wizards of the coast/MTG move if you ask me).
We are talking about a level 17+ ranger here. If there's any point in a campaign you can assume you have some magic items it's then. And every ranger that is going to be picking up swift quiver already has sharpshooter by then.
For any archer ranger not trying to be an idiot with a hand crossbow swift quiver is far more unique than guardian of nature. There are other ways to gain advantage, but nothing else the ranger gets gives two weapon attacks a round over time.
I started this thread badmouthing swift quiver and preaching conjure animals. I haven't changed my opinion that conjure animals is the better spell in a vacuum, or on a ranger BUT I have recognized what swift quiver adds to specifically the ranger kit. When you need to pump out high-priority, single target damage as a longbow archer, swift quiver is a good tool to have.
Purple Worm Poison only lasts until the first hit per dose. Applying a dose of poison is an action. Anyone can do this.
Foe Slayer is more powerful in terms of to-hit protentional than straight added damage output, although it greatly effect the damage output when factoring in to-hit potential.
A ranger archer is not going to keep up with a fighter archer or warlock in straight single turn, single target, damage. Swift Quiver or not. They can add to single target damage output with the rest of the party, but it isn't their primary function. Taking out groups of enemies efficiently, battlefield control and manipulation, and other non-direct damage is their focus in combat. If single target direct damage is what is needed then swift quiver is great to have because it will boost that a little over a 3 to 5 round combat (the norm I'm told). By tier 4 play ranger's are hiding as a bonus action, ignore difficult terrain, and have helped the party gain the upper hand at the start of the battle through overland stealth, spells, and knowledge. Over 3 rounds of combat a level 17 fighter archer using both action surges is looking at an average of 142.5 damage without feats. A hunter ranger will average 108.5 using swift quiver or 91.5 using hunter's mark. I just don't know if that is a worthy gain fin damage for a level 5 spell slot. It gets better when sharpshooter is used (177 and 129), but still isn't a huge jump.
The point is swift quiver would multiply a 2000Gp poison basically making it cheaper Per shot. Any class can use poison but swift quiver makes It more cost effective and you get to keep using it until you loose concentration. The same would be any non magical arrow. Same as Adamantine Arrow which is an auto crit. My point is don't underestimate the duplication properties of swift quiver.
These are just examples for what I was trying to point out. This is what makes it good for high level rangers and not as good for bards magical secrets. It requires equipment investment. and that I Like the idea that the spell can both be underpowered and over powered depending on the situation. I was attempting to answer Brans question with out quoting him.
Note: Injury poison lasts until used or washed off so no need to waste a action in combat.(Exception: basic poison and the new special poison from the feat)
Claiming swift quiver copies the poison you apply to an arrow feels like a hard reach. I'm dubious at best. The spell doesn't say you copy the arrow and the poison that was applied and I can't find anything that claims a poison is considered one entity with the arrow once it is applied. That being said I can't find anything that says you don't copy the properties of the poison when the first arrow you used for swift quiver was poisoned. RAW seems ambivalent on the subject matter, unless I'm missing something, or Jeremy Crawford tweeted about it and I don't know. Either way it's cheesy as hell, and I doubt many DMs would let it fly.
Copying adamantine is perfectly fine, but unexciting as that auto crit only happens on objects.
I didn't even get the making copies of the ammunition AND applied substances part. I thought it was implying multiple uses of one poison. Mmm... That does seem like a stretch. I'm about as lenient a DM as they come and I wouldn't roll with that. The spell even says "similar piece of nonmagical ammunition".
Hey! I mean if the battle calls for everyone to go all out with direct damage then this is the ranger's best best at this level of play.
I wouldn't even ask for it lol. I'm an optimizer at heart but I know when to draw the line. Sometimes it does hurt to ask.
Playing devil's advocate, that text in the spell is quite vague. What exactly does similar piece of ammunition mean? Does it mean the arrow and anything applied to it, or just the arrow? I'm inclined to think just the arrow, but my bias is on the side of the reasonable and RAW has nothing to do with reasonable/unreasonable. Is it exploitative? of the worst degree. Is it RAW? can't tell.
Well, in the spirit of rules as fun, not game breaking, and being a 5th level spell slot, I guess I can see having a conversation about it. I mean, even if a bard took this at level 10 that is still only 4 attacks (from a bard starting the second turn in combat) focusing on dexterity instead of charisma. I could see silver or adamantine being helpful and allowable. The poison is a harder sell, but if a player has saved, made, harvested, applied, took the class, subclass, and spell to make this work...once...why not let it play out.
So can: -a level 5 monk -a level 11 beastmaster (2 yourself and 2 your beast) -a level 11 horizon walker, provided 3 of those are on different targets -a level 11 gloomstalker, provided one of those attacks misses -a level 11 hunter, provided there are enough target close to each other -a level 11 fighter -any martial with extra attack and haste cast on them (Jeej for vengeance paladin and horizon walker)
(most of these would require PAM, CBE or TWF and all require the use of your bonus action)
While all of these things you listed can get 4 attacks, most of them are situational. Casting haste on yourself skips an entire round of attacking. That means in order to make up for it, the ranger needs to keep it up and used for at least 3 rounds, 4 if using two weapon fighting, just to break even on casting it. Monk bonus action attacks are generally considered weaker because there aren't many official magic items that benefit unarmed attacks. This is also an issue for the beast master pet attacks. There are also no feats that help these attacks. This doesn't mean those aren't good features. It just serves to show how good 4 attacks with a main weapon attack is, especially if that weapon is magical and especially if that ranger has sharpshooter. Bards can nab this with magical secrets but otherwise the only other class that can get 4 main weapon attacks is the fighter at level 20.
Will it always be the best option? Probably not. Will it always be a very good option? Absolutely.
I'm not arguing that swift quiver has a place, i was mainly arguing your claim that only lv 20 fighters get to make 4 attacks.
Regarding you comment about haste: With haste you can immediately use you special haste action and then use your bonus action for the twf/cbe/pam bonus attack. So that is two attacks on the turn that you cast it, the same amount as with swift quiver. For a ranger (probably horizon walker) using one of those effects, I think this makes haste almost stricktly better than swift quiver. The only downside haste has in this comparisson is the weakness once the spell ends.
So can: -a level 5 monk -a level 11 beastmaster (2 yourself and 2 your beast) -a level 11 horizon walker, provided 3 of those are on different targets -a level 11 gloomstalker, provided one of those attacks misses -a level 11 hunter, provided there are enough target close to each other -a level 11 fighter -any martial with extra attack and haste cast on them (Jeej for vengeance paladin and horizon walker)
(most of these would require PAM, CBE or TWF and all require the use of your bonus action)
While all of these things you listed can get 4 attacks, most of them are situational. Casting haste on yourself skips an entire round of attacking. That means in order to make up for it, the ranger needs to keep it up and used for at least 3 rounds, 4 if using two weapon fighting, just to break even on casting it. Monk bonus action attacks are generally considered weaker because there aren't many official magic items that benefit unarmed attacks. This is also an issue for the beast master pet attacks. There are also no feats that help these attacks. This doesn't mean those aren't good features. It just serves to show how good 4 attacks with a main weapon attack is, especially if that weapon is magical and especially if that ranger has sharpshooter. Bards can nab this with magical secrets but otherwise the only other class that can get 4 main weapon attacks is the fighter at level 20.
Will it always be the best option? Probably not. Will it always be a very good option? Absolutely.
I'm not arguing that swift quiver has a place, i was mainly arguing your claim that only lv 20 fighters get to make 4 attacks.
Regarding you comment about haste: With haste you can immediately use you special haste action and then use your bonus action for the twf/cbe/pam bonus attack. So that is two attacks on the turn that you cast it, the same amount as with swift quiver. For a ranger (probably horizon walker) using one of those effects, I think this makes haste almost stricktly better than swift quiver. The only downside haste has in this comparisson is the weakness once the spell ends.
When I said that I meant with a bow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Even with the red dragon scenario, a ranger has to see what the others on his team are doing. Swift quiver adds an average of 19 damage a round starting the round AFTER it's cast, 33.15 if using feats for sharp shooter (although would you be using the -5/+10 on an ancient red dragon?). Depending on the terrain, cover or lack thereof, and other party members, having two huge creatures friendly to your party might make all the difference. Yes, an ancient red dragon's breath weapon would destroy these huge snakes, but why would they be placed right next to one another when you can choose their location? If these creature take any, let alone multiple hits from the dragon that would otherwise be directed to a PC, that's a big win. The can be used for cover (3/4 cover due to their size) helping the PCs with their dexterity saving throws and AC. They can provide the help action. They can ready an attack in case the dragon flies or walks by to hit a PC. These are all tactical decisions that can and should be made on a case by case scenario. The snakes won't take out the dragon on their own, but that's not their purpose. Plop these bad boys down with the paladin, rogue, or fighter and see if they complain.
Its a little unclear but some dms may allow you to use it to duplicate purple worm poison for each shot. Most dragons are not immune to poison. 4 hits of purple worm poison is nothing to laugh at.
I am curious is it general design to make the high end features more than a bit lack luster on the ranger, or was it more fear of magical secrets on the bard that placed the spell at 5th level. On the greater strengths of summoning some table avoid them as a kind or 'let's not bog down encounter' pact.
Swift Quiver gives the Ranger 4 attacks. It costs concentration and a spell slot, as well as using the bonus action. However, only the Fighter can do that and it's at level 20. Bard can take this spell with Magical Secrets at 10 and make a good archer but I don't really think it necessarily plays to the Bards strengths. I don't really think the late game stuff is lackluster but that's really just opinion.
Anyone with eldritch blast and 17 character levels is also making 4 attacks.
So can:
-a level 5 monk
-a level 11 beastmaster (2 yourself and 2 your beast)
-a level 11 horizon walker, provided 3 of those are on different targets
-a level 11 gloomstalker, provided one of those attacks misses
-a level 11 hunter, provided there are enough target close to each other
-a level 11 fighter
-any martial with extra attack and haste cast on them (Jeej for vengeance paladin and horizon walker)
(most of these would require PAM, CBE or TWF and all require the use of your bonus action)
Honestly, Having the 4 attacks at the cost of your bonus action and having to concentrate on a spell isn't broken in the slightest. Just as Wannyboy stated, there are dozens of ways that someone can get 4 attacks every turn long before Tier 4. I mean a Sorcerer/Warlock combo can get 4 at 5 (though they couldn't only do it so many times) and 6 attacks at Level 11. With a magical item, Warlocks can blast away with Eldritch Blast twice a turn so at Level 17 they can attack 8 times without expending any resources.
Just based on what benefits come with this spell, I do not think that it should be a 5th level spell. If a Horizon Walker Ranger took Crossbow Expert feat, they could cast Haste on themselves, get 3 attacks and a bonus action attack along with double speed, advantage on Dex Saves and increased AC. Based on that, I personally believe Swift Quiver should have been a 3rd Level spell instead of the level they made it. Sure they would get 4 attacks at Level 9 but it really isn't game breaking to let them do that since it costs them a spell slot, concentration and their bonus action to use it.
While all of these things you listed can get 4 attacks, most of them are situational. Casting haste on yourself skips an entire round of attacking. That means in order to make up for it, the ranger needs to keep it up and used for at least 3 rounds, 4 if using two weapon fighting, just to break even on casting it. Monk bonus action attacks are generally considered weaker because there aren't many official magic items that benefit unarmed attacks. This is also an issue for the beast master pet attacks. There are also no feats that help these attacks. This doesn't mean those aren't good features. It just serves to show how good 4 attacks with a main weapon attack is, especially if that weapon is magical and especially if that ranger has sharpshooter. Bards can nab this with magical secrets but otherwise the only other class that can get 4 main weapon attacks is the fighter at level 20.
Will it always be the best option? Probably not. Will it always be a very good option? Absolutely.
Swift Quiver with Foe Slayer is incredibly powerful. Before then, it’s not incredibly *versatile*, but still useful in niche situations.
Foe Slayer is only once per turn which is on par with the weakest capstones in the game.
Again it only seems useful if in conjunction with an ability That adds damage to each attack. The things that come to mind are hunters mark, poison, enlarge/reduce, oathbow. you would need to find a way to bypass concentration for some of them (via another party member, magic item or glyph cheats ). so an magic weapon with poison seems to be worth it. an oathbow with purple worm poison has a potential of 4d8+12d6 + (4x12d6 (Dc19 saves for half)) Possibly adding in sharpshooterx4 and bracers of archery +8 Per turn you maintain concentration. In summary, I think it assumes high level magic enhancement to make it worth it (a very Wizards of the coast/MTG move if you ask me).
We are talking about a level 17+ ranger here. If there's any point in a campaign you can assume you have some magic items it's then. And every ranger that is going to be picking up swift quiver already has sharpshooter by then.
For any archer ranger not trying to be an idiot with a hand crossbow swift quiver is far more unique than guardian of nature. There are other ways to gain advantage, but nothing else the ranger gets gives two weapon attacks a round over time.
I started this thread badmouthing swift quiver and preaching conjure animals. I haven't changed my opinion that conjure animals is the better spell in a vacuum, or on a ranger BUT I have recognized what swift quiver adds to specifically the ranger kit. When you need to pump out high-priority, single target damage as a longbow archer, swift quiver is a good tool to have.
Purple Worm Poison only lasts until the first hit per dose. Applying a dose of poison is an action. Anyone can do this.
Foe Slayer is more powerful in terms of to-hit protentional than straight added damage output, although it greatly effect the damage output when factoring in to-hit potential.
A ranger archer is not going to keep up with a fighter archer or warlock in straight single turn, single target, damage. Swift Quiver or not. They can add to single target damage output with the rest of the party, but it isn't their primary function. Taking out groups of enemies efficiently, battlefield control and manipulation, and other non-direct damage is their focus in combat. If single target direct damage is what is needed then swift quiver is great to have because it will boost that a little over a 3 to 5 round combat (the norm I'm told). By tier 4 play ranger's are hiding as a bonus action, ignore difficult terrain, and have helped the party gain the upper hand at the start of the battle through overland stealth, spells, and knowledge. Over 3 rounds of combat a level 17 fighter archer using both action surges is looking at an average of 142.5 damage without feats. A hunter ranger will average 108.5 using swift quiver or 91.5 using hunter's mark. I just don't know if that is a worthy gain fin damage for a level 5 spell slot. It gets better when sharpshooter is used (177 and 129), but still isn't a huge jump.
The point is swift quiver would multiply a 2000Gp poison basically making it cheaper Per shot. Any class can use poison but swift quiver makes It more cost effective and you get to keep using it until you loose concentration. The same would be any non magical arrow. Same as Adamantine Arrow which is an auto crit. My point is don't underestimate the duplication properties of swift quiver.
These are just examples for what I was trying to point out. This is what makes it good for high level rangers and not as good for bards magical secrets. It requires equipment investment. and that I Like the idea that the spell can both be underpowered and over powered depending on the situation. I was attempting to answer Brans question with out quoting him.
Claiming swift quiver copies the poison you apply to an arrow feels like a hard reach. I'm dubious at best. The spell doesn't say you copy the arrow and the poison that was applied and I can't find anything that claims a poison is considered one entity with the arrow once it is applied. That being said I can't find anything that says you don't copy the properties of the poison when the first arrow you used for swift quiver was poisoned. RAW seems ambivalent on the subject matter, unless I'm missing something, or Jeremy Crawford tweeted about it and I don't know. Either way it's cheesy as hell, and I doubt many DMs would let it fly.
Copying adamantine is perfectly fine, but unexciting as that auto crit only happens on objects.
I didn't even get the making copies of the ammunition AND applied substances part. I thought it was implying multiple uses of one poison. Mmm... That does seem like a stretch. I'm about as lenient a DM as they come and I wouldn't roll with that. The spell even says "similar piece of nonmagical ammunition".
Hey! I mean if the battle calls for everyone to go all out with direct damage then this is the ranger's best best at this level of play.
I wouldn't even ask for it lol. I'm an optimizer at heart but I know when to draw the line. Sometimes it does hurt to ask.
Playing devil's advocate, that text in the spell is quite vague. What exactly does similar piece of ammunition mean? Does it mean the arrow and anything applied to it, or just the arrow? I'm inclined to think just the arrow, but my bias is on the side of the reasonable and RAW has nothing to do with reasonable/unreasonable. Is it exploitative? of the worst degree. Is it RAW? can't tell.
Well, in the spirit of rules as fun, not game breaking, and being a 5th level spell slot, I guess I can see having a conversation about it. I mean, even if a bard took this at level 10 that is still only 4 attacks (from a bard starting the second turn in combat) focusing on dexterity instead of charisma. I could see silver or adamantine being helpful and allowable. The poison is a harder sell, but if a player has saved, made, harvested, applied, took the class, subclass, and spell to make this work...once...why not let it play out.
I'm not arguing that swift quiver has a place, i was mainly arguing your claim that only lv 20 fighters get to make 4 attacks.
Regarding you comment about haste: With haste you can immediately use you special haste action and then use your bonus action for the twf/cbe/pam bonus attack. So that is two attacks on the turn that you cast it, the same amount as with swift quiver. For a ranger (probably horizon walker) using one of those effects, I think this makes haste almost stricktly better than swift quiver. The only downside haste has in this comparisson is the weakness once the spell ends.
When I said that I meant with a bow.