Ranger Class Preview

Monday, July 2, 2018

Rangers have a long tradition in heroic adventure. Whether they're portrayed as lone striders keeping the edges of the wilderness free of the threats that lurch forth from the world's shadows, as hunters tracking down fugitives or beasts, or as skilled archers serving as a scouting force for a local lord or group of village elders, rangers have a special place in our fantastical imagination.

For the Pathfinder Playtest, we decided to cleave closer to the core principles of the ranger—a rough and tumble warrior in the wild, possibly of the wild himself. Because of this, the most significant change we made to the class was that it no longer has spellcasting ability, at least as a default. Of course, this doesn't mean we have to abandon this aspect of the Pathfinder First Edition ranger forever. Because of the way classes are now structured, it would be easy to create a spellcasting build of the ranger later using Spell Points (like the paladin), but for the Playtest, we are trying out a a spell-less ranger.

But enough of what the ranger doesn't have. Let's take a look at what he does.

Ranger Features

First and foremost, the ranger is a hunter. In Pathfinder First Edition, you picked creature types or subtypes that you were skilled at hunting. There are few things more frustrating than playing a ranger who rarely—or worst of all, never—encounters their favored enemies. It also led to some players who tended to play in more human-centric campaigns picking the human subtype, even if their backgrounds may have pointed to better choices for favored enemies.

This time we made the ranger hunting ability a bit more flexible, based on some popular ideas from the guide archetype and the slayer's studied target. At 1st level, rangers gain the Hunt Target feature.

[[A]] Hunt Target

Ranger

Requirements You can see or hear the target.

You designate a single creature within 100 feet as your target and focus your attacks against that creature. While hunting that creature, you gain benefits for focusing your attacks. As long as all your attacks in a round are against the target you're hunting, the multiple attack penalty you take on the second attack is -4 (-3 with an agile weapon) instead of -5, and -8 (-6 with an agile weapon) instead of -10 on the third and any further attacks in the round. You also ignore the penalty for making ranged attacks against the target you're hunting within your second range increment. You also gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks when you Seek your target and a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your target.

You can have only one creature designated as the target of your hunt at a time. If you use Hunt Target against a creature when you already have a creature designated, the prior creature loses the designation and the new target gains the designation. In any case, this designation lasts until your next daily preparation.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

There are many class feats and some higher-level abilities that augment the ranger's Hunt Target. For example, at 17th level, the masterful hunter feature decreases the ranger's multiple attack penalty to -3 (or -2 with agile weapon) with his second attack and -6 (or -4 with agile weapons) on his third or further attack, and he can ignore the penalty against the target of his hunt in the second or third range increment, assuming that he has at least master proficiency in the weapon he is. Speaking of which, like the fighter, the ranger gains weapon mastery for a group of weapons, though he gains it at 13th level instead of at 3rd level like the fighter. At 19th level, the ranger gains the swift target feature, which allows him to use Hunt Target as a free action triggered before he makes his first Strike each round, so he's never without a target to hunt! The specifics of the Hunt Target ability make the ranger excel at a variety of combat styles, especially his traditional two-weapon fighting (since you can decrease the multiple attack penalty with agile attacks to be incredibly small) and archery (since you eliminate some of the most common ranged increment penalties). Of course, a ranger with a less traditional style, like a greatsword with a reduced multiple attack penalty, works great too!

Other class features allow the ranger to stalk and avoid his foes. At 5th level, he gains trackless step. At 7th level, he gains evasion (followed by improved evasion at 15th level). He gains nature's edge at 9th level, which allows him to treat enemies in natural difficult terrain or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare (more on snares later!) as flat-footed. Come 11th level, he gains the wild stride feature, which allows him to ignore or minimize the effects of difficult terrain.

Ranger Feats

Class feats, of course, determine the flavor of individuals within a class, and the ranger is no different. Specific ranger feats allow him to gain an animal companion at the same progression as a druid's, though potentially with special benefits that only a ranger can obtain. Other feats will enable him to further focus on his weapon choice, including a whole string of feats that allow him to specialize in two-weapon fighting.

Some fun feats allow the ranger to use his knowledge and senses to aid his allies as well as himself. Here are a couple of my favorites.

Monster Hunter Feat 1

Ranger

When you critically succeed to identify a target you're hunting with Recall Knowledge, you (and your allies, if you tell them) gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against it, but not against other creatures of that species. The creature is bolstered.

[[F]] Scout's Warning Feat 4

Ranger

Trigger You are about to roll Perception for initiative.

You audibly or visually warn your allies of danger, granting them a +1 circumstance bonus to their initiative rolls.

Harkening back to the hunter's bond class feature in Pathfinder First Edition, these feats allow the ranger to support the rest of the group with increased flexibility in how he chooses to do so, and these are just a few. The ranger can expand on Monster Hunter to grant even more benefits with a successful Recall Knowledge and even share the benefits of Hunt Target with other PCs (pretty much any martial class will love this benefit). And while flanking-savvy fighters might be a rogue's traditional best friend, the 12th-level Distracting Shot feat allows the ranger who hits a target with two ranged attacks in the same turn to leave that critter flat-footed until the start of the ranger's next turn. This helps fast rogues bring the pain quickly and farther away from more heavily armored support.

Another group of feats allows you to create snares. (Told you I'd get to that!)

Snares

Like alchemy, the ability to create snares is granted by a general feat (Snare Crafting). And like alchemists, rangers have the potential to lift general snare crafting to greater heights.

What are snares? Well, they're small portable hazards, very similar to traps, which can be set up in a short period of time (usually 1 minute). While it's unlikely that you will set up a snare in the midst of combat, they are perfect tools to arrange a battleground to your advantage. For instance, remember the nature's edge class feature that allows you to treat enemies in difficult terrain as flat-footed? Here's the most basic snare that creates difficult terrain.

Slowing Snare Snare 1

Consumable, Mechanical, Snare, Trap

Price 2 gp

A square with this snare becomes difficult terrain when the first creature enters it, and then it is destroyed.

Other snares set off alarms, trip, or deal damage to those entering the area of a snare. Grab some alchemical items, and you can deal even more damage with a snare.

Freezing Snare Snare 8

Cold, Consumable, Mechanical, Snare, Trap

Price 50 gp

You set a trio of liquid ice bombs to explode in unison when a creature enters the freezing snare's square. The target must attempt a DC 22 Reflexsave.

Success The target takes 1d8 cold damage.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.

Failure The target takes 3d8 cold damage and is hampered 10 until the end of its next turn.

Critical Failure The target takes 6d8 cold damage and is hampered 10 until the end of its next turn.

Craft Requirements three vials of liquid ice

Ranger feats that deal with snares allow you to learn more of them as your Crafting rank increases, lets you set them up faster (even in the middle of combat), and increases snares' DCs to match your class DC. Always make sure that your allies know where you hid your snares, or no bonus to attack rolls or initiative that you grant them will make up for the damage and humiliation you might cause.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Senior Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Harsk Pathfinder Playtest Rangers Wayne Reynolds
751 to 800 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Get back on track of the thread.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think a bard and a ranger might make a good combination. Hunt Target synergizes well with Inspire in those big boss fights.


I just looked at the Paladin sample sheet on ENworld:

1) Seelah has the Retributive Strike. Good lord (no pun intended) that looks amazing! I seriously hope Rangers get something(s) on that level. Interesting that they nerfed Lay on Hands down to d4. Seelah had to take a feat to raise it d6;

2) I see shortbows get a 1d10 damage die on crit. I wonder if longbows will get the same or similar, or if shortbows are being brought on part with longbows, but suited for different purposes..

Liberty's Edge

You know, I would LOVE to see Rangers get some kind of Environmental ability. Something that makes them shine as true masters of not just the hunt, but also of the land. Rogues get a bit of this with how they play around with hiding and such.

One of the things that I loved to see but never saw hit play much were favored terrain. Could Pathfinder consider giving somethings similar to the Ranger, since they're losing spell casting. Something alongside the Archetypes which allow them to climb better, or have better footing.

Maybe they can get a few 'trick' attacks by using elements of the world around them. A branch swing in the forest or throwing sand in the eye of an opponent in the desert. Something that plays up on that Rangers are lords of the land in which they travel, both a part of it and Masters of it.

I just have a hard time seeing Rangers lose Spellcasting without gaining something in exchange. Realistically, I can't see snares entering play often enough, given how mobile adventuring parties are. They're either moving into trouble, or trouble surprises them. It's rare that there's a 'wait for trouble to come to them' moment.

So unless snares are something that can be used in-combat, they're like rituals: not a replacement for actual spellcasting ability in the fray.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think a bard and a ranger might make a good combination. Hunt Target synergizes well with Inspire in those big boss fights.

Had pretty much this exact situation come up in a game recently where the bard tipped the ranger over into a critical success with his dwarven waraxe against a boss opponent for a boatload of damage.

Ranger was really interesting for me in that I thought, based on my initial perusal, that it wasn't going to be quite the class for me, but it's now become one of my favorites. Part of that is probably that I'm still discovering new options and ways to build each time I sit down to fill out a character sheet, but I think it's also just that the modular class design means that you've always got an effective new path to explore even with the same class/race combo. My most recent ranger build was for a dwarf fighting with a dwarven waraxe, a clan dagger, and a bear, but I think the next one is going to be a human crossbow sniper (maybe with a bird animal companion) just to try out that playstyle.


Sean R wrote:
You know, I would LOVE to see Rangers get some kind of Environmental ability. Something that makes them shine as true masters of not just the hunt, but also of the land. Rogues get a bit of this with how they play around with hiding and such.

Amen. I'd love to see Paizo double down on this.

Looks like the basics are here:

ENWorld wrote:

Trackless Step (5th level).

Evasion (7th level).
Nature's Edge (9th level) -- enemies in difficult terrain or a snare are flat-footed.
Wild Stride (11th level) -- ignore or minimise difficult terrain.

Trackless Step?? *facepalm* I am curious what/how/where Paizo perceives this as being a functional benefit if it's the same as P1. Yes, I think it's thematically very cool, but it amounts to essentially no value in the context of nominal play, so why is it pushed back to level 5?

Waiting until 9th and 11th level to get more signature Ranger benefits just feels like P1 status quo. Bring this stuff in earlier and let Rangers feel like Rangers.


Michael Sayre wrote:


Ranger was really interesting for me in that I thought, based on my initial perusal, that it wasn't going to be quite the class for me, but it's now become one of my favorites. Part of that is probably that I'm still discovering new options and ways to build each time I sit down to fill out a character sheet, but I think it's also just that the modular class design means that you've always got an effective new path to explore even with the same class/race combo

At first glance, you seem to be focused on combat and that you're surprised that different builds seem viable in combat.

How does the Ranger feel as a specialist? Are there things in the context of the game that support or facilitate you doing things as a Ranger that you can't do as another class. Does the Ranger have signature abilities that are useful beyond just adding more damage?

Does the Ranger have anything on level with Retributive Strike?

Thanks in advance.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:


Ranger was really interesting for me in that I thought, based on my initial perusal, that it wasn't going to be quite the class for me, but it's now become one of my favorites. Part of that is probably that I'm still discovering new options and ways to build each time I sit down to fill out a character sheet, but I think it's also just that the modular class design means that you've always got an effective new path to explore even with the same class/race combo
At first glance, you seem to be focused on combat and that you're surprised that different builds seem viable in combat.

It's really not that at all. I have yet to play a PF2 class that didn't shine in combat in its own way. It's more that the new edition got me really excited to see what I could do now that I couldn't do before, and the ranger seemed to be the most familiar chassis, spells being removed notwithstanding. What wasn't immediately obvious to me until I'd dived into the system and played around with things more was how well the ranger performs across all the different modes of play, and how unique its in-combat playstyles were even compared to another class that used a similar fighting style. I don't find the current edition ranger to be terribly interesting to play until about 4th or 5th level (after which it's one of my favorite classes), and so it was a real treat for me to see that the ranger in the new edition hits the ground running and feels like the character I set out to play right from level 1.

Quote:


How does the Ranger feel as a specialist? Are there things in the context of the game that support or facilitate you doing things as a Ranger that you can't do as another class. Does the Ranger have signature abilities that are useful beyond just adding more damage?

Thanks in advance.

Combat is just easy to talk about because

A) It's been pretty well covered by the blogs and other reveals so I don't have to worry about accidentally spilling the beans on something that was supposed to be kept for later

and

B) It's the most consistent frame of reference for all players. Out of combat activities tend to vary the most in how they're handled by different groups, so it's hard to convey preference.

All that being said, the ranger has a lot of tools for out of combat, through class abilities, by virtue of inheriting the current edition ranger's strong skill focus, and in other ways that will be easier to talk about in a few weeks once the playtest starts.


First off, thanks for posting.

Michael Sayre wrote:
... to see what I could do now that I couldn't do before...

Can you elaborate? What could you not do before?

Quote:
and the ranger seemed to be the most familiar chassis, spells being removed notwithstanding.

So there is no Spell point option? What do Rangers have in place of spell points? (assuming you can talk about it)

Quote:
What wasn't immediately obvious to me until I'd dived into the system and played around with things more was how well the ranger performs across all the different modes of play

What are the "different modes of play" in this context?

Quote:
and how unique its in-combat playstyles were even compared to another class that used a similar fighting style.

Admittedly confused by this. HT simply increases the accuracy on subsequent attacks. How does this make the Ranger combat any more unique or are you referring to other things?

Quote:
I don't find the current edition ranger to be terribly interesting to play until about 4th or 5th level (after which it's one of my favorite classes)

Most (obviously not all) of the classes, imo, aren't "terribly interesting" until about 3-5. I think the problem with the P1 Ranger is that the Combat Style at level 2 feels like a long wait because 1st level feels like it takes the longest. And apart from your Favored Enemy, which might not even show up, you don't have anything that sets you apart. Rogue and Barbarian come on a little earlier with Rage and SA being there right out of the gate. So yes, I can see how getting HT from the get go lets the player start using their thing. Plus, HT requires an affirmative action, so you feel like your making tactical choices from the very first battle.

Why is it your favorite class after 4-5th? Spells, AnComp?

The class is my favorite to play as well. For me, it's the out-of-combat versatility offered by the spell/skill options and the in-combat tactical sophistication offered by the animal companion.

Quote:
..and so it was a real treat for me to see that the ranger in the new edition hits the ground running and feels like the character I set out to play right from level 1.

The other classes don't feel that way in P2, or is it just you suddenly feel like you're keeping up from the start?

Thanks again.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
First off, thanks for posting.

Of course! I hope you'll forgive me for picking and choosing a bit with my answers; reveals of any information that haven't been gone over elsewhere are the purview of the design team, and rightly so given the amazing work they've done on this new system. So I'm going to avoid anything that I can't answer without breaching into yet-to-be-discussed topics.

Michael Sayre wrote:
... to see what I could do now that I couldn't do before...
Quote:
Can you elaborate? What could you not do before?

A big part of this has to do with the breadth and effectiveness of options available, such as having an animal companion right out of the gate as a ranger and more generally being able to use the more robust action system to achieve results that used to involve multiple feats and class features.

Quote:
and the ranger seemed to be the most familiar chassis, spells being removed notwithstanding.
Quote:
So there is no Spell point option? What do Rangers have in place of spell points? (assuming you can talk about it)

As mentioned in the blog, the playtest is focused on a spell-less version of the ranger. The ranger instead gains a large selection of thematic options that can build into iconic, wilderness-themed abilities, advanced combat styles, and a few other options.

Quote:
What wasn't immediately obvious to me until I'd dived into the system and played around with things more was how well the ranger performs across all the different modes of play
Quote:
What are the "different modes of play" in this context?

I was referring to combat, exploration, and downtime there.

Quote:
and how unique its in-combat playstyles were even compared to another class that used a similar fighting style.
Quote:
Admittedly confused by this. HT simply increases the accuracy on subsequent attacks. How does this make the Ranger combat any more unique or are you referring to other things?

HT is just one tool in the ranger's toolbox. As some have gathered from our social media push, HT will be accompanied by an array of really interesting class feats that can add capabilities that build on HT or out from it into more diverse areas.

Quote:
Why is it your favorite class after 4-5th? Spells, AnComp? The class is my favorite to play as well. For me, it's the out-of-combat versatility offered by the spell/skill options and the in-combat tactical sophistication offered by the animal companion.

4th -5th level in PF1 is the point when I typically have enough magic to trigger my FE and FT abilities reliably, along with an animal companion to benefit from them. I'm also a big fan of the hunter in PF1. I guess mostly I like playing characters with good tactical options and animal companions.

Quote:
The other classes don't feel that way in P2, or is it just you suddenly feel like you're keeping up from the start?

Honestly I think that the impression that 1st level PF2 characters have less going on than 1st level PF1 characters is something that will go away once people have the playtest in hand. Pretty universally I've found that all the PF2 classes do a better job of making it feel like you're playing the character you set out to play right from the start. The way that character resources are gained happens in a way that lightens the cognitive load but actually gives you a greater breadth of options than the current edition in many ways, especially when combined with the new action economy and general character progression. You'll definitely have to let me know what you think when you get the playtest, but once you do I'd strongly encourage you to sit down and build a character or two, and then play a game. I think you'll find that the new system really doesn't sacrifice the depth and richness offered by the current system in pursuit of its goal to make the game more accessible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, I appreciate your taking time to talk about your experiences.

Michael Sayre wrote:
A big part of this has to do with the breadth and effectiveness of options available, such as having an animal companion right out of the gate as a ranger and more generally being able to use the more robust action system to achieve results that used to involve multiple feats and class features.

Yes, getting that companion from start will definitely make the Ranger feel like the player is getting things to play with.

Quote:
As mentioned in the blog, the playtest is focused on a spell-less version of the ranger. The ranger instead gains a large selection of thematic options that can build into iconic, wilderness-themed abilities, advanced combat styles, and a few other options.

I'm hoping these things fill the role of spells. However, I fear having no spells/spell list will catch up with the Ranger at some point. Historically, designers tend to break the rules with spells far more than feats. What's more, spells are far more interchangeable than feats or class options. Spell use is a big axis of agency for characters in P1 and I don't see that changing in P2, so Rangers having that stripped seems an easily overlooked loss/nerf, despite many players not appreciating it. For example, can Rangers still heal as the could using wands P1?

Quote:
As mentioned in the blog, the playtest is focused on a spell-less version of the ranger. The ranger instead gains a large selection of thematic options that can build into iconic, wilderness-themed abilities, advanced combat styles, and a few other options.

That sounds encouraging, but like all things, the devil is in the details.

Quote:
Honestly I think that the impression that 1st level PF2 characters have less going on than 1st level PF1 characters is something that will go away once people have the playtest in hand

I guess I don't get that impression. 1st level characters in P1 have very little (like nothing) going on, especially when compared to level 7+. Some of the more recent classes were more involved, but most of core and base were not so much, imo. P2 actually seems to have a lot more tactical options and moving bits from the start, which is very encouraging.

Quote:
I think you'll find that the new system really doesn't sacrifice the depth and richness offered by the current system in pursuit of its goal to make the game more accessible.

I actually expect that to be true. There's a tremendous amount of bloat in P1 rules, so I would hope that professional game designers with a decade of experience would be able to streamline it and improve it at the same time.

Despite my concern with HT, your post does give me hope. I am hoping these other parts are not mutually exclusive i.e. getting thematic options comes at the expense of a companion, etc.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played many rangers across different game formats, from online to 1st Edition AD&D, Basic D&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, 4th Edition D&D, and Pathfinder 1st Edition. This is the first playtest I've bothered to read about the upcoming changes for 2nd Edition since Rangers are near and dear to me. Putting aside that all of my 1st Edition characters will be forcibly retired unless I can find a 1st Edition PFS game, the changes and 'improvements' to the Ranger class does not impress me one bit. In fact, not having seen the mechanics of other classes, the changes I see here have me really discouraged about where 2nd Edition is going. No spells? Greater penalties to multiple attacks on top of the penalty for multiple attacks when they are accessible? Forcing a cookie-cutter archetype that, while some might find appealing, does not allow for flexible builds that are beyond the scope envisioned?
Very discouraging to find all the limitations being forced on a future Ranger that, to be honest, after reading this playtest, I am dis-inclined to make. I think Paizo is making a huge mistake in this version. I'm worried about reading any other playtests about classes that I've cherished in 1st Edition, and see how they've butchered those classes, as well. Very worried.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think you should read them, so you have a better idea of the new design they are pursuing. I am confused about your comment on 'greater penalties'. Rangers get the ability to reduce the penalties on multiple attacks, not increase them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fire-at-Will, I'm not Will. wrote:
Greater penalties to multiple attacks on top of the penalty for multiple attacks when they are accessible? Forcing a cookie-cutter archetype that, while some might find appealing, does not allow for flexible builds that are beyond the scope envisioned?

As with TOZ, I'm not sure what you mean by "greater penalties." Ranger gets reduced penalties to multiple attacks.

Also, everything I've seen from day 1 of these PF2e blogs indicates that you will have far greater flexibility in terms of your class build than you had in PF1e, because of modular class design (you get to choose most of your class abilities through Class Feats). I'm not sure how this forces a cookie cutter archetype, and suspect there is a lot more flexibility here due to general class design than what you are seeing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it's impossible to judge a class in PF2 without reading its full list of class feats. Also, since one can just print more class feats in any splatbook, you can update a class on the fly like every month.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fire-at-Will, I'm not Will. wrote:
Very worried.

I'm worried as well. Fortunately the blog isn't the complete picture. Michael Sayre's post suggests there are enough additional mechanics that the class feels capable.

Bottom line is that things are going to change from version to version because, well, changing things is the point of making a new version. I'm going to hope that it is as Sayre suggests. I am going to hope that the class feels like it can do things that are substantive and Rangerish. Getting an AC from start is going to help. HT, despite my not liking it thematically, has moving parts and that will psychologically make one feel engaged.

I do feel like the other classes have a more integrated feel. Mark Seifter is 10 pages (EDIT: 12 pages and counting) deep into the Bard and still posting. How long did anyone stick around in the Ranger blog? Three pages?? But part of that may be attributed to the Ranger being specialist that no one can agree on exactly what makes them what they are. There's lots of commentary from people who see the Ranger as a Slayer or Hunter or Fighter who makes a campfire, but that's not the Ranger. The Ranger was unique class in AD&D that can cover some popular tropes, but is technically distinct from them. This version, it would appear Paizo is taking away some of its uniqueness so that it can fit all these tropes. Contrast that with the Paladin, which they kept as close to the AD&D concept as they could.

We'll see.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Fire-at-Will, I'm not Will. wrote:
Very worried.

I'm worried as well. Fortunately the blog isn't the complete picture. Michael Sayre's post suggests there are enough additional mechanics that the class feels capable.

Bottom line is that things are going to change from version to version because, well, changing things is the point of making a new version. I'm going to hope that it is as Sayre suggests. I am going to hope that the class feels like it can do things that are substantive and Rangerish. Getting an AC from start is going to help. HT, despite my not liking it thematically, has moving parts and that will psychologically make one feel engaged.

I do feel like the other classes have a more integrated feel. Mark Seifter is 10 pages deep into the Bard and still posting. How long did anyone stick around in the Ranger blog? Three pages?? But part of that may be attributed to the Ranger being specialist that no one can agree on exactly what makes them what they are. There's lots of commentary from people who see the Ranger as a Slayer or Hunter or Fighter who makes a campfire, but that's not the Ranger. The Ranger was unique class in AD&D that can cover some popular tropes, but is technically distinct from them. This version, it would appear Paizo is taking away some of its uniqueness so that it can fit all these tropes. Contrast that with the Paladin, which they kept as close to the AD&D concept as they could.

We'll see.

I basically "lose" a thread once it has too many new posts for me to keep up with them all, since I know that if I enter a thread without reading all of the posts, like I did now, I'm going to lose paizo.com's tracker on my most recent unread post, and I really don't like to do that. The bard thread has kept a steady rhythm and diversity of topics I've been able to keep up with, but any thread that really gets a lot of posts fast (typically from a long back and forth debate but I can't know that until I commit to clicking the thread) I tend to lose track that way. That said, other than this time and a few other times I've bit the bullet and lost the thread, you can generally expect that if I post in a thread, I have read all posts in that thread up to the point of my post.

So it's more about thread behavior. I'm also quite biased towards posting in my own thread topics and likely to lose a thread over a weekend and have only a few Monday blog topics, but, for instance, I was at Origins the week barbarian was up, so really the magic, bard, and paladin threads are my only Monday topics that I didn't have a reason I fell behind.


N N 959 wrote:
2) I see shortbows get a 1d10 damage die on crit. I wonder if longbows will get the same or similar, or if shortbows are being brought on part with longbows, but suited for different purposes..

As I understand it, Deadly X doesn't mean "replace damage die with X on a crit." It's "deal X extra damage on a crit", which is better at low levels but might be worse at higher ones (and of course, it depends on how Deadly the weapon is - the weapons blog mentioned that glaives dealt 1d8 base and extra d8s on a crit). So on a crit, Seelah would deal 2d6+1d10 with her shortbow,

It would appear that Deadly is used on weapons that had extra-nasty crits in PF1. Bows critted for x3, so they get Deadly.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
It would appear that Deadly is used on weapons that had extra-nasty crits in PF1. Bows critted for x3, so they get Deadly.

Agreed, but also on some extra high-range, but 2x weapons, as we've seen the rapier get deadly d8 (the scimitar, however is not deadly, presumably because they're trying to move away from the "rapier, but slashing" aspect of it from 1e, but I'd imagine other 18-20 weapons will also get deadly, like the Katana, and probably the Kukri).


Staffan Johansson wrote:
As I understand it, Deadly X doesn't mean "replace damage die with X on a crit." It's "deal X extra damage on a crit"

Yes, that's what I understand as well. I'm not sure why you put that in quotes as I did not write that.

"..get a 1d10 damage die on crit" means exactly that. Like you get an apple if you answer this question correctly.

Quote:
which is better at low levels but might be worse at higher ones

Unless crit frequency increases as you level, an extra 1d10 is obviously going to have less impact the higher the level of the target.


Mark Seifter has been trying to defend Hunt Target as a long-term investment against taking down an enemy, but I just cannot see the value in it. I have seen nothing so far that suggests that 2e combat does not reward a good alpha strike, and Hunt Target undermines an alpha strike. A weapon-user ideally wants to move and then attack twice during their first turn, while focusing fire together with the party against a single opponent. Why consume an action on Hunt Target when the idea is for the party to collectively neutralize a key target ASAP?

I could see this being ideal when a ranger gets to ambush something, but otherwise, it takes too many turns from the ranger for it to break even.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Mark Seifter has been trying to defend Hunt Target as a long-term investment against taking down an enemy, but I just cannot see the value in it. I have seen nothing so far that suggests that 2e combat does not reward a good alpha strike, and Hunt Target undermines an alpha strike. A weapon-user ideally wants to move and then attack twice during their first turn, while focusing fire together with the party against a single opponent. Why consume an action on Hunt Target when the idea is for the party to collectively neutralize a key target ASAP?

When your argument is that the designer who has extensively played with the ability is wrong because of your knowledge of a system you haven't actually played yet, it sort of seems like you're not going to be convinced and the topic probably isn't worth further discussion until the game comes out next week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not be so quick to put good faith in the effectiveness of an ability just because it worked out for one person. After all, that is what a playtest is for: for others to identify shortcomings in design that the authors overlooked.

Someone suggested that Hunt Target should usable when the ranger identifies the tracks or presence of a creature, or otherwise gains confirmation of a creature's presence in the area. I think that would be a thematic expansion of Hunt Target's niche.

As it currently stands, Hunt Target works best when the party is fighting a singular opponent that will take a long time to go down, and the party can afford to stand still and chip away at the solo enemy.


Also, it is true that Hunt Target is better with a ranged weapon than with melee attacks (a disparity that should probably be addressed so as to make melee rangers equally appealing), but even for a ranged ranger, I am skeptical that Hunt Target is worth the action for an enemy that will go down in one or two rounds.

An archer ranger will still probably want to move on their first turn, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
When your argument is that the designer who has extensively played with the ability is wrong because of your knowledge of a system you haven't actually played yet, it sort of seems like you're not going to be convinced and the topic probably isn't worth further discussion until the game comes out next week.

I think you've misunderstood Colette's argument. Colette isn't saying Mark is wrong. Colette's pointing out that long term combat is contrary to what you actually want in these games. In nearly all combat games as well as real life, high alpha strikes are far better than having to do damage over time.

There's nothing Mark has posted that contradicts that. What Mark has attempted to do is convince us that using HT is going to be beneficial in rounds 2 and certainly 3. Mark has completely ignored the alpha strike reality of these games and how HT undermines it. He's also ignored the thematically incongruity this feat has with actual hunting. Putting a range nullifier and some skill bonuses on Acid Splash doesn't make it a "hunting" feat.

I think Mark's counter argument to this (Colette's point) was that you wouldn't use this on easy kill mooks but only on lieut's and bosses. The theory being you'd kill these targets more quickly because you won't be alpha striking them anyway. The problem is players may have no idea how hard something is to kill unless the Knowledge checks are going to start revealing hit points or they are metagaming and looking up stats. Mark seems to be forgetting his system mastery gives him a huge advantage on when and when not to use HT, something the average player won't have an certainly not a new player. I've played PF for about six years now and faced a ton of things in PFS with little or no idea how many hit dice they had because in WotC's genius, they decided a K check would reveal nothing about how tough a creature was to kill in terms of hit points.

The other counter-argument made by some posters is that P2 is supposed to reduce rocket tag and all fights are suppose to take longer. Easy for someone to post, I doubt its true based on what we've seen so far, but then I've not been listening to any of the steams of actual playing, so maybe someone who has can tell us if combats are lasting more than 3 rounds on average.


Colette Brunel wrote:
Also, it is true that Hunt Target is better with a ranged weapon than with melee attacks (a disparity that should probably be addressed so as to make melee rangers equally appealing)

It looks like P2 is back door nerfing ranged combat. For one, it would seem multiple attack penalties are higher for ranged combat. For two, there are rumors that the longbow has been nerfed via a short range penalty.

Quote:
An archer ranger will still probably want to move on their first turn, after all.

Especially at low levels when soft cover is a huge problem.


N N 959 wrote:
It looks like P2 is back door nerfing ranged combat. For one, it would seem multiple attack penalties are higher for ranged combat. For two, there are rumors that the longbow has been nerfed via a short range penalty.

This could be a good thing, as 5th Ed went the opposite route, to my dismay.


@NN959:

Combats on the GC Podcast did indeed seem to take a bit longer than they should under PF1, but the water is muddied in that case by exceedingly poor die rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we know what "Seek your target" means in Hunt Target? Seek being capitalized seems important. I kind of like this construction of Hunt target for the ranger because it will reward rangers for being stealthy and trying to get eyes or ears on a creature before attacking it. That feels very flavorful to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Seek being capitalized seems important.

Maybe it's something you say like James Earl Jones to turn a snake into a living arrow.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Seek being capitalized seems important.
Maybe it's something you say like James Earl Jones to turn a snake into a living arrow.

I hope so. I ask because it looks like other words that have specific meanings are all capitalized as well, like Perception, Survival, Track...and now "Seek!"

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Mark has completely ignored the alpha strike reality of these games and how HT undermines it.

How exactly do we know that PF2 has alpha strike as a reality?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark has completely ignored the alpha strike reality of these games and how HT undermines it.

How exactly do we know that PF2 has alpha strike as a reality?

*nods*

With the 4 degrees of success and revamping of spells even SoDs no longer hold that crown. Nothing from what's been previewed thus far indicates that we have Alpha Strike capability.


Unicore wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Seek being capitalized seems important.
Maybe it's something you say like James Earl Jones to turn a snake into a living arrow.
I hope so. I ask because it looks like other words that have specific meanings are all capitalized as well, like Perception, Survival, Track...and now "Seek!"

Yeah, maybe it's an action you can take to grant a bonus on your next ranged attack (like a precise shot, sort of thing).

The James deal can be a spell.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
He's also ignored the thematically incongruity this feat has with actual hunting.

Hunt: to pursue and kill.

If I focus on someone so I'm better at killing them and they can't properly evade me, I'm hunting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Do we know what "Seek your target" means in Hunt Target? Seek being capitalized seems important. I kind of like this construction of Hunt target for the ranger because it will reward rangers for being stealthy and trying to get eyes or ears on a creature before attacking it. That feels very flavorful to me.

I'm relatively sure Seek is an action you take when trying to find something that is hidden. It allows you to actively roll to find something as opposed to just relying on your passive perception bonus.

So if the targets turns invisible or otherwise uses stealth, the ranger gets a +2 bonus to find them. (I think this will be pretty nice, because I expect a success to just tell you the general direction of teh target but a critical success to let you pinpoint its location.)

I THINK the way it works is if you hide you roll stealth against their perception DC (10+ perception bonus), and they don't roll by default. But if they spend an action to Seek you, they get to roll perception against your Stealth DC (10+stealth bonus.) This seems like a good way to distinguish between actively searching for something and just happening to notice it, rewards taking your time to look, and speeds up play by a lot. You don't need to roll a lot of opposed checks for every monster you try to sneak by anymore, which is important when it comes to things like an entire enemy camp.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Do we know what "Seek your target" means in Hunt Target? Seek being capitalized seems important. I kind of like this construction of Hunt target for the ranger because it will reward rangers for being stealthy and trying to get eyes or ears on a creature before attacking it. That feels very flavorful to me.

I'm relatively sure Seek is an action you take when trying to find something that is hidden. It allows you to actively roll to find something as opposed to just relying on your passive perception bonus.

So if the targets turns invisible or otherwise uses stealth, the ranger gets a +2 bonus to find them. (I think this will be pretty nice, because I expect a success to just tell you the general direction of teh target but a critical success to let you pinpoint its location.)

I THINK the way it works is if you hide you roll stealth against their perception DC (10+ perception bonus), and they don't roll by default. But if they spend an action to Seek you, they get to roll perception against your Stealth DC (10+stealth bonus.) This seems like a good way to distinguish between actively searching for something and just happening to notice it, rewards taking your time to look, and speeds up play by a lot. You don't need to roll a lot of opposed checks for every monster you try to sneak by anymore, which is important when it comes to things like an entire enemy camp.

Ah, very like Passive Perception and Perception checks (an Action) of 5th Ed.


TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark has completely ignored the alpha strike reality of these games and how HT undermines it.

How exactly do we know that PF2 has alpha strike as a reality?

????

I don't understand your question. I'm not aware that the designers of AD&D, 3.5, or P1 have any formal design agenda regarding alpha striking, outside of feats like Vital Strike. But any game in which you can potentially kill something before it can attack you back means alpha striking is a preferred approach. In fact, this aspect of combat is so pronounced, the MMORPG City of Heroes put an endurance tax on large damage attacks. The CoH designers realized, from the get-go, that if two attacks have the same DPS, but one does damage over time and the other does it in a single hit, the single hit attacks were superior due to crits and that killing your target at the start of the time period is better than killing the target at the end of the time period.

Hunt Target undermines the ability to alpha strike in that it will encourage/compel players to forgo an attack to gain a benefit in later rounds. This is true in both the melee and ranged scenarios. Mark's rationalization is that you're doing more damage over time, but it wholly ignores the asymmetrical impact of a second or third attack being enough, especially when combined with other attackers, to kill the target outright.

I'm also going to repeat what I said before. Mark's defense of this in terms of not using it on mooks ignores the fact that players won't have the system mastery that he and his the Paizo staff in being able to calculate when its best to use HT or not.

How will the Playtest reveal sub-optimization that will undoubtedly occur? How will players know whether they would have been better off not using HT? I would really like to see Paizo run statistical analysis using HT and then not using HT and then replacing HT with any other combat mechanic and see which results in quicker combats and less damage to the Ranger/party.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Do we know what "Seek your target" means in Hunt Target? Seek being capitalized seems important. I kind of like this construction of Hunt target for the ranger because it will reward rangers for being stealthy and trying to get eyes or ears on a creature before attacking it. That feels very flavorful to me.

I'm relatively sure Seek is an action you take when trying to find something that is hidden. It allows you to actively roll to find something as opposed to just relying on your passive perception bonus.

So if the targets turns invisible or otherwise uses stealth, the ranger gets a +2 bonus to find them. (I think this will be pretty nice, because I expect a success to just tell you the general direction of teh target but a critical success to let you pinpoint its location.)

I THINK the way it works is if you hide you roll stealth against their perception DC (10+ perception bonus), and they don't roll by default. But if they spend an action to Seek you, they get to roll perception against your Stealth DC (10+stealth bonus.) This seems like a good way to distinguish between actively searching for something and just happening to notice it, rewards taking your time to look, and speeds up play by a lot. You don't need to roll a lot of opposed checks for every monster you try to sneak by anymore, which is important when it comes to things like an entire enemy camp.

Ah, very like Passive Perception and Perception checks (an Action) of 5th Ed.

Yeah, that is pretty close to what it is. It is just where 5e has this particular language where they like to say "You can make a wisdom (perction) check as an action to find where the target is hidden," Pathfinder has that codified as just using the word "Seek." As in, "You can Seek where the target is hidden."

I think there will be similar terms for studying something to figure out its weaknesses or history, or determine if something is actually an illusion. But I don't remember the term off the top of my head.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

I don't understand your question. I'm not aware that the designers of AD&D, 3.5, or P1 have any formal design agenda regarding alpha striking, outside of feats like Vital Strike. But any game in which you can potentially kill something before it can attack you back means alpha striking is a preferred approach. In fact, this aspect of combat is so pronounced, the MMORPG City of Heroes[ but an endurance tax on large damage attacks. The CoH designers realized, from the get-go, that if two attacks have the same DPS, but one does damage over time and the other does it in a single hit, the single hit attacks were superior due to crits and that killing your target at the start of the time period is better than killing the target at the end of the time period.

So you are saying that rocket tag is the only way to play roleplaying games?


Captain Morgan wrote:


So if the targets turns invisible or otherwise uses stealth, the ranger gets a +2 bonus to find them. (I think this will be pretty nice, because I expect a success to just tell you the general direction of teh target but a critical success to let you pinpoint its location.)

So let me ask you, how often have you been fighting something and it turned invisible or stealthed and you had to make a Perception check to find them to continue the battle? I ask, because several people talk about this like it's some great benefit and I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to do this in PFS in 10 levels of playing my Ranger.

And while I know that occasionally some NPC casters might use Inviso, how much practical benefit is a +2 going to have on pinpointing a creature?

While you're at it, I would love to know what the practical use of Trackless Step is (not a rhetorical question...well, maybe a little).


Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Do we know what "Seek your target" means in Hunt Target? Seek being capitalized seems important. I kind of like this construction of Hunt target for the ranger because it will reward rangers for being stealthy and trying to get eyes or ears on a creature before attacking it. That feels very flavorful to me.

I'm relatively sure Seek is an action you take when trying to find something that is hidden. It allows you to actively roll to find something as opposed to just relying on your passive perception bonus.

So if the targets turns invisible or otherwise uses stealth, the ranger gets a +2 bonus to find them. (I think this will be pretty nice, because I expect a success to just tell you the general direction of teh target but a critical success to let you pinpoint its location.)

I THINK the way it works is if you hide you roll stealth against their perception DC (10+ perception bonus), and they don't roll by default. But if they spend an action to Seek you, they get to roll perception against your Stealth DC (10+stealth bonus.) This seems like a good way to distinguish between actively searching for something and just happening to notice it, rewards taking your time to look, and speeds up play by a lot. You don't need to roll a lot of opposed checks for every monster you try to sneak by anymore, which is important when it comes to things like an entire enemy camp.

Ah, very like Passive Perception and Perception checks (an Action) of 5th Ed.
Yeah, that is pretty close to what it is. It is just where 5e has this particular language where they like to say "You can make a wisdom (perction) check as an action to find where the target is hidden," Pathfinder has that codified as just using the word "Seek." As in, "You can Seek where the target is hidden."

Yeah, there is some clumsy language in 5th Ed due to avoiding game jargon, embracing natural language.


Rysky wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
He's also ignored the thematically incongruity this feat has with actual hunting.

Hunt: to pursue and kill.

If I focus on someone so I'm better at killing them and they can't properly evade me, I'm hunting them.

This was discussed up-thread and in the HT analysis thread. The mechanic where by you get better accuracy the longer you attack something isn't a hunting paradigm or representative of any skill developed by hunters.

HT is simply a combat mechanic and one which encourages a sit-there-and-duke-it-out style of combat. IMO, Paizo has done the class and the players a disservice by trying to associate this with the concept of hunting. It far more fits the concept of slaying than hunting. The blog would have been better served by calling rangers "first and foremost a slayer," given their choice to use HT as the signature ability for the class. Paizo actually admits that HT borrows from the Slayer P1 class.

751 to 800 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Ranger Class Preview All Messageboards