|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Look, Paizo, I'll save you guys the trouble of scratching your heads trying to figure out why the Ranger isn't working: it's spending levels of class budget in features that are binary and conditional.
Trackless Step is actually the most minor offender, because as a 5th level feature, it seems not to be taking anything from the class budget... that being said, it's something that would be very situational as a Skill Feat even. Maybe you can find another cool, more applicable feature to add in here.
Nature's Edge seems pretty terrible for me because you rarely get to decide when natural difficult terrain appears to exploit it. It's nice that it works with Snares, but it seems to say that you waste class power if you don't get them. What if Nature's Edge had an "always on" bonus that allowed you to deal extra damage to flat-footed enemies or something?
Wild Stride comes extremely late, and the fact that it doesn't help with magical abilities seems pretty bad. Most other classes have easier ways to dealing with it that also help against magical difficult terrain too, and the fact it does nothing against hazardous terrain seems like a pretty sad 11th level feature.
The Ranger is already encouraged to bring the adventure to the wilds thanks to having Survival and Nature-related abilities, why double up on that?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I'm definitely missing the versatility of favored terrain. In 1e it was fairly easy to build an urban ranger with the default class features and still be pretty awesome in a city setting. Feels like a bit of a backslide to "rangers must be woodlands creatures only".
That said, I do approve of getting rid of favored everything.
If there was a separate pool of combat feats you could choose from would that help the situation? I see dead levels, and I think it's better to get some archetypes or my multiclassing in.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
master_marshmallow wrote: If there was a separate pool of combat feats you could choose from would that help the situation? I see dead levels, and I think it's better to get some archetypes or my multiclassing in. There are no dead levels. Mainly because you need to use all your General Feats and Class feats to claw together something competent as compared with a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, or even Rogue.
One of my P1 classes is a Archery Ranger with an AC. In order to come even halfway close to that build, I need every single General and Ancestry Feat. Even then, you don't get anything close to Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Improves Precise Shot, Point-Blank Shot, etc. What remains of those abilities has gone to the Fighter. The one leg-up Ranger's get is Favored Aim, which takes two actions. That means with an Animal Companion and Favored Aim, you're getting ONE attack per round. Impossible Volley isn't possible if you want your AC to do anything but stand there.
The Ranger isn't suffering from a lack of choices, it's suffering for a lack of feats to pick up those choices. A competent companion costs four feats when it used to cost one. Wild Empathy is now a feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The feat distribution does feel like a lack of real choices, often spread out over your whole character forcing you to specialize, and even then by a margin that really doesn't affect gameplay since it's so small.
There's math too that compares crit chances on primary attacks to chance to hit on secondary and tertiary. Theory says it should scale to favor the earlier attacks by improving the chance to crit marginally every level. Actual says the chance to crit is smaller than the chance to hit, making multiple attacks better than using whichever class feature you have that costs you one or more actions to initiate on your attacks that round.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote:
The Ranger isn't suffering from a lack of choices, it's suffering for a lack of feats to pick up those choices. A competent companion costs four feats when it used to cost one. Wild Empathy is now a feat.
Compared to what a druid can do with an animal companion, I'm not sure I would consider the Rangers to be "competent".
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Just make the options something that makes playerrs go "Oh, that's cool" instead of "Oh, that sucks."
TRACKLESS STEP
When you move through natural terrains, you are difficult
to track. You and up to eight other creatures always gain the benefits of the Cover Tracks action in such terrains.
NATURE'S EDGE
You treat enemies in areas of natural difficult terrain, or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare, as flat-footed. You gain a +2 bonus to AC, TAC, and Reflex Saves while in all forms of difficult terrain.
WILD STRIDE
You can ignore the effects of difficult terrain and greater difficult terrain.
You have Resist 20 against the effect of hazardous terrain effects.
***********
Okay, now all of those? Those still aren't good. I've been playing RPGs for years now as player and GM and not once has "Did we leave tracks through the forest?" come up.
A +2 defense bonus that relies on you being in difficult terrain is still situational and it's not going to break the game, especially not when classes like fighter or paladin can just get always on bonuses to armor.
Even wild stride functioning against magical terrain and helping you wade through acid pools isn't that great.
But they're more fun. They paint the image of the Ranger as being competent, an expert in his field. He's the f#&#ing Ranger, not "some guy with a bow and a pet".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quadratic W wrote:
TRACKLESS STEP
When you move through natural terrains, you are difficult
to track. You and up to eight other creatures always gain the benefits of the Cover Tracks action in such terrains.
Still useless. In addition to Cover Tracks, Trackless Step, as suggested by someone else, needs to give a +2 conditional bonus on Perception and Stealth against all senses. They also need to give Rangers a boost to actually track creatures, though that's almost just as worthless.
Actually, Tracking a creature needs to convey a benefit, like using Recall Knowledge ahead of time, allowing the application of Hunt Target base don the tracks, or another +1 to Perception involving the party tracked.
Quote: Okay, now all of those? Those still aren't good. I've been playing RPGs for years now as player and GM and not once has "Did we leave tracks through the forest?" come up. Funny, funny, funny. I've been arguing with several posters in my Cover Tracks thread about the exact same thing. I don't get where Paizo is coming from with this feat and the whole Cover Tracks mechanic. P1 had the pass without trace spell and I've never seen a scenario contemplate PC's needing to cover tracks.
What's more, in order for Trackless Step to benefit the party, the Ranger would have to travel with all members. So it's not even as useful as the 1st level spells. If someone in the party goes off to scout, the Ranger's Trackless Step isn't going to help them.
Quote: They paint the image of the Ranger as being competent, an expert in his field. Paizo has nerfed competence across the board and it doesn't really count for much in P2.
I am struggling with the P2 Ranger on many levels. While I enjoy the outdoor theme, the benefits are so situational, they might never come up. As you correctly contrast this with other classes which get benefits that may be situational, but are not based on terrain, but on frequency of common mechanics e.g. hitting someone flat footed, avoiding sneak attack, getting AoO's, etc.
Finally, I am so pained by the attempt to incorporate snares with the Ranger and the loss of spells. This may ultimately doom P2 for me. That fact that Paizo wants to stick Rangers with snare is so disheartening, imho. It'd be one thing if Snares were this wonderful new mechanic like Inspiration was for Investigators. But who the hell uses it in P1?
N N 959 wrote: It'd be one thing if Snares were this wonderful new mechanic like Inspiration was for Investigators. But who the hell uses it in P1? I know I sure don't. Even when I archetype my magic out, because I'm not a fan of the 4/9 casting thing, I avoided the ones that tried to replace it with terrible trap gimmicks.
Is the campaign about hunting wild animals? ...gosh, you actually said yes? Alright, sure, lets roll with that. Do you want to spend that whole campaign just setting traps to hunt the wild animals for you?
Even in the perfect scenario the things are still useless, because they actively make the game less fun to play.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
They need to remove the even level = class feat, odd level = class feature limitation for martial classes.
Rogues and Spell casters all get minor class features on even levels. Rogues get an extra skill rank, spell casters get an extra spell slot. I think it would help make martial classes more interesting if they also got minor features like these.
A ranger could get these features at say levels 4 and 10, and get useful features levels 5 and 11. A fighter could get interesting but not so directly related to combat abilities like Battlefield surveyor.
Having those extra features would also give more things to trade out when making class specific archetypes.
I think gaining minor powers like these on even levels would help make classes more interesting while not increasing power.
I want more feat chains consolidated, and to have more robust options.
citricking wrote: They need to remove the even level = class feat, odd level = class feature limitation for martial classes.
Rogues and Spell casters all get minor class features on even levels. Rogues get an extra skill rank, spell casters get an extra spell slot. I think it would help make martial classes more interesting if they also got minor features like these.
A ranger could get these features at say levels 4 and 10, and get useful features levels 5 and 11. A fighter could get interesting but not so directly related to combat abilities like Battlefield surveyor.
Having those extra features would also give more things to trade out when making class specific archetypes.
I think gaining minor powers like these on even levels would help make classes more interesting while not increasing power.
The problem is that you essentially have to dedicate all your class and general feats to make something that continue to improve as you level. Animal Companions require at least 4 feats as you level. If you want Wild Empathy, another feat. Want more Hunt Target targets? Another feat. Want to leverage Monster Hunter? More feats.
So I don't want more feats that dilute the build.
master_marshmallow wrote: I want more feat chains consolidated, and to have more robust options. If you mean combine feats so that they do more, yes. I don't want more options, I want fewer options that are more useful.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sydney S. wrote: Is the campaign about hunting wild animals? ..***
Even in the perfect scenario the things are still useless, because they actively make the game less fun to play.
This really captures the essence of my response to the class. I am really at a total loss for what Paizo is thinking with the whole Ranger approach. They've put in all these thematic things that aren't actually useful on any reoccurring basis.
A perfect example are the backgrounds. The Ranger Backgrounds have this narrow, specific functionality that is largely useless in the context of the game. For example Survey Wildlife lets you know "one or two" types of animals and maybe an intelligent beast in the area.. One or two animals? I've played PFS for over half a decade and I don't recall ever having to find and track some random animal. In addition, what is the point of being able to identify "one" type of intelligent beast? If it it's part of the encounter, the scenario will simply let you use Survival to get some bonus to find it. There's no value in finding some intelligent beast that isn't part of the scenario for obvious reasons.
Another head scratcher is the Forager skill. Find and food and water???? Look, I get that this sounds useful, but this is not an episode of Alone. If scenarios try and stress a party with a lack of food and water, then the party solves the problem and there is little actual value in being able to solve that as an individual. Even at [i[legendary[/i] skill level i.e. level 15, you're only able to support four other people. At 15th level? Really? Casters's get a 2nd level spell that creates food for SIX PEOPLE every day. *facepalm*
Even Assurance, some guy ran through the the scenarios and looked to see how many skill checks he could have passed with Assurance. It was a fraction. In essence, it was pointless.
I really don't get where Paizo is coming from with the Ranger theme. I understand that they've added stuff that seems reasonable in the context of real life, but in the context of the game, these things are mostly pointless. What makes it worse is that when compared to other classes, they get far more useful and applicable skills. For example, being a Blacksmith gives you Crafting, which is incredibly important in this game. How can Paizo pretend that finding random animals is even remotely as useful as being able to repair armor?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: citricking wrote: They need to remove the even level = class feat, odd level = class feature limitation for martial classes.
Rogues and Spell casters all get minor class features on even levels. Rogues get an extra skill rank, spell casters get an extra spell slot. I think it would help make martial classes more interesting if they also got minor features like these.
A ranger could get these features at say levels 4 and 10, and get useful features levels 5 and 11. A fighter could get interesting but not so directly related to combat abilities like Battlefield surveyor.
Having those extra features would also give more things to trade out when making class specific archetypes.
I think gaining minor powers like these on even levels would help make classes more interesting while not increasing power.
The problem is that you essentially have to dedicate all your class and general feats to make something that continue to improve as you level. Animal Companions require at least 4 feats as you level. If you want Wild Empathy, another feat. Want more Hunt Target targets? Another feat. Want to leverage Monster Hunter? More feats.
So I don't want more feats that dilute the build.
master_marshmallow wrote: I want more feat chains consolidated, and to have more robust options. If you mean combine feats so that they do more, yes. I don't want more options, I want fewer options that are more useful. I think the incremental feats that build chains consuming your class feats are bad design. I'd want to see them consolidated into 2-3 feat chains instead of 7-8 feat chains.
Otherwise it enforces over specialization.
In PF1 we got pools of abilities like rogue talents that came in two pools, normal and advanced, some individual choices had level requirements.
I could see them doing 3 lists, expert, master, and legend, and feats individually would scale up.
master_marshmallow wrote: I think the incremental feats that build chains consuming your class feats are bad design. This I tend to agree with. It's frustrating having to spend every Class and General and Ancestral on Class feats just to have a Archery Ranger with a Companion. But Paizo has gone whole hog on customization, so I don't see them back off of this.
I so much prefer the Combat Styles of P1, with everything else being hard-coded.
The real problem however, is that so little of what Paizo has added as thematic flavor, is useful. Trackless Step is pointless. Nature's Edge? How often do scenarios put NPCs in difficult wild terrain? Compare that with a Monk's Fierce Flurry which increases damage dice of Flurry of Bows.
Wild Stride is the only Ranger-themed ability that has at least some usefulness, but you don't get it until 11th level? Jesus.
Masterful Hunter requires that you actually use HT and the removal of the 3rd Range increment? You can't even use HT at 120 ft. How is that suppose to help anyone but Slings or thrown weapons? *facepalm*
Don't forget that your pet is literally going to be weaker than the Druids pet. Ranger also gets little in terms of Archery. Too many feat selections are wasted on flavor items that should just be baked into class.
I am going to bring a ranger into the level 4 campaign playtest this weekend with Xbow Ace, Quick Swap and Running reload. Hoping to split my combat with the Xbow and melee 2hander. The abuse on action economy feels good, but it doesn't look like anything special. Any other build I ran just felt flat out inferior to any other options available.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lavieh wrote: Don't forget that your pet is literally going to be weaker than the Druids pet. Ranger also gets little in terms of Archery. Too many feat selections are wasted on flavor items that should just be baked into class. Technically, you have to be a Druid from Animal Order for this to be true. But if you are, you get to heal your animal using spell points and you get full casting on top of that.
Ranger need spells back (because we got nothing in place of them). They need thematic options that address problem or provide bonuses that are actually useful. Paizo nerfed Skill, something the Ranger had over other Martials, but didn't compensate the Rangers in any way. The skill gap between Rangers and Fighter has been reduced (because we aren't getting 4 more skill points a level) but the combat gap hasn't been reduced, if anything, it's been increased.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
For comparison purposes, I meant to imply that since if you are going animal companion focused in either class you are going to make the appropriate choices.
But yeah the major complain is that Druids get a free heal spell, additional stats, fully grown at an earlier level and a free action(if no command given) over a Ranger. This all while maintaining their primal spell casting ability. The martial difference between Druid and Ranger is also really small because of how small the gap is between Trained and Master. If anything the Druid may pull out ahead because of self buffs.
Lavieh wrote: The martial difference between Druid and Ranger is also really small because of how small the gap is between Trained and Master. If anything the Druid may pull out ahead because of self buffs. I think Paizo's response is that Rangers get Weapon Mastery at 3rd level. Is this a game changer? Is a +1 on attack and the ability to stick a target to a wall with an arrow and waste ONE action to get free, or make your target flat footed, or get a natural cleave, but only if you critical, compensate for everything else?
Hard to know, and tougher to prove.
I think the issues with this Ranger can be summed up like this.
1) Loss of spell-casting greatly reduces a Ranger's versatility and is not replaced with anything useful or fun.
2) Initially everything a Ranger has access to that other classes can do is inferior or is quickly made inferior in comparison.
3) The Ranger essentially has no unique abilities at all. The Fighter can fight in the same ways a Ranger can. A Druid can have Animal Companion. An Alchemist can craft a items to use against foes, too.
What does a Ranger do that is his own? Follow an enemy so the real adventurers can deal with it faster and more efficiently? Hide out in the woods instead of adventuring?
One YouTube channel put is succinctly. "Looking all the other classes, I was asking what are all the cool things this class can do. But, when looking at the Ranger, I was asking what is missing that would make this a complete class?"
As for me, I'm asking, "Why are these Rangers so useless and boring?"
LordVanya wrote: As for me, I'm asking, "Why are these Rangers so useless and boring?" My answer to this is that many of the thematic benefits the Ranger gets, aren't generally useful. IMO, this is true for not only the baked in abilities, but several of the Backgrounds as well.
Hunt Target - Attacking with less penalty if you attack the same target more than once, does not convey any sense of Ranger-ism. The +2 Seek is useless unless your target is Unseen. The +2 Track??? When do you end up tracking something you're in combat with? Sure, I suppose it's good if you want to follow someone you're looking at right now, but when is that a game option?
Trackless Step - When do PCs need to Cover Tracks. That game mechanic existed in P1 with pass without trace. Out of 100 encounters, how many of them required or even benefited from Cover Tracks in P1?
Wild Empathy - Actually used this occasionally in P1...but only because I had a wand of speak with animals. Without the ability to actually communicate with an animal, Wild Empathy is either pointless, or an inferior option to other things like simply attacking. But Rangers now have to spend a feat to get something that they can barely use. Remember, it requires a Diplomacy check which Rangers aren't trained in.
Nature's Edge - Once again, how often am I in a natural setting where the NPCs are forced to deal with difficult terrain? Compare Nature's Edge to what other classes are getting at 9th level.
Wild Stride - Downgrade terrain difficulty by one, but nonmagical only, and not Hazard terrain. Finally an ability that has some value.... at 11th level. Half the character's career is over, assuming you even get to this point in the game.
Masterful Hunter- Attempts to improve the HT benefit, but not in any way that has to do with being a Ranger. Worse, the benefit to Ranged increments is worthless to bows as HT doesn't even work at the 3rd Range increment for a shortbow. *facepalm*
Paizo told us that Favored Enemy was bad because it wasn't consistently available benefit. But then they stick the class with a host of abilities that are even less generally useful. I don't get it and they aren't offering any explanations.
Hopefully, this will be addressed after the initial play test.
I can't imagine this many people can be complaining this much about this one class and they not take notice.
Plus I saw a post elsewhere by a staff member saying that they are aware of this stuff. Don't remember where or who.
Recent threads in Classes
|
