Player Core Preview: The Remastered Ranger

...giving it an innately better Critical Specialization is nice (especially since the 'pin' specialization is pretty terrible as it is).

I disagree here. Immobilized is a pretty useful condition, so bow's critical specialization is almost always a wasted action on the enemy's part, even if they could pass the check with their eyes closed. For your melee comrades, it's an Interact to remove, so it provokes Reactive Strike, and stacks with Prone and Grabbed for extra lockdown. Meanwhile, 1d8 to 1d8+3 bleed damage is nice at low levels but doesn't scale well into later levels. It's 25% of the HP of a level 0 creature, but 2.5% of the HP of a level 16 creature.

The pin doesn't effect certain kinds of amorphous foes, but there are plenty of bleed immune enemies too, both RAW (e.g. all elementals and constructs) and ones your GM may conditionally rule immune (such as skeletons).

Meanwhile, 1d8 to 1d8+3 bleed damage is nice at low levels but doesn't scale well into later levels. It's 25% of the HP of a level 0 creature, but 2.5% of the HP of a level 16 creature.

I think it's better than you give it credit for. Think of it as "Fatal light". It starts at 4.5 damage and scales up to 7.5 damage. That's one or two die size increases worth of extra damage. And that's only on a single damage tick.

It's worse than fatal since it doesn't stack with itself if you crit multiple times and it won't do much in a party with other bleed sources. But against hard to hit enemies that you might only hit once because of their high AC it can potentially outdamage fatal if the target lives a few rounds and fails their recovery checks.

Oh, and it does stack with any fatal or deadly trait your crossbow might already have, of course. That's nice for Taw Luncher or Sukgung.

Level 16 seems really late especially since running reload is at 4. More over I'd really like to see the Arbalest at a d12 since it's still worse than its main competition both composite bows and the Arquebus. It really needs the d12 to be a reasonable choice against those.

I disagree here. Immobilized is a pretty useful condition, so bow's critical specialization is almost always a wasted action on the enemy's part, even if they could pass the check with their eyes closed. For your melee comrades, it's an Interact to remove, so it provokes Reactive Strike, and stacks with Prone and Grabbed for extra lockdown. Meanwhile, 1d8 to 1d8+3 bleed damage is nice at low levels but doesn't scale well into later levels. It's 25% of the HP of a level 0 creature, but 2.5% of the HP of a level 16 creature...

Ok so random question but do you play using theater of the mind or actual maps? Because I can't understand what's with all this praise for the bow critical specialization. It's not supposed to be guaranted, it says so on the tin: "If the target of the critical hit is adjacent to a surface, it gets stuck to that surface by the missile."

If there is no adjacent surface, there is no pin, and no wasted action for the enemy. The only way I can see this being the best critical specialization is if the GM goes out of their way to always give it to you with sentances like "Oh yeah there was definately a chair next to that enemy" or "yeah sure pin them to the floor, I'll count that as adjacent" which is easier to do using theater of the mind.

Granted a bleed spec isn't guaranteed either, but it's hardly a downgrade, and I feel like it's more likely to go off since you have better control on what you chose to attack and with what. You have no control on where an enemy decides to move.

RootOfAllThings wrote:

I disagree here. Immobilized is a pretty useful condition, so bow's critical specialization is almost always a wasted action on the enemy's part, even if they could pass the check with their eyes closed. For your melee comrades, it's an Interact to remove, so it provokes Reactive Strike, and stacks with Prone and Grabbed for extra lockdown. Meanwhile, 1d8 to 1d8+3 bleed damage is nice at low levels but doesn't scale well into later levels. It's 25% of the HP of a level 0 creature, but 2.5% of the HP of a level 16 creature...

Ok so random question but do you play using theater of the mind or actual maps? Because I can't understand what's with all this praise for the bow critical specialization. It's not supposed to be guaranted, it says so on the tin: "If the target of the critical hit is adjacent to a surface, it gets stuck to that surface by the missile."

If there is no adjacent surface, there is no pin, and no wasted action for the enemy. The only way I can see this being the best critical specialization is if the GM goes out of their way to always give it to you with sentances like "Oh yeah there was definately a chair next to that enemy" or "yeah sure pin them to the floor, I'll count that as adjacent" which is easier to do using theater of the mind.

Granted a bleed spec isn't guaranteed either, but it's hardly a downgrade, and I feel like it's more likely to go off since you have better control on what you chose to attack and with what. You have no control on where an enemy decides to move.

The ground is an adjacent surface.

The ground is an adjacent surface.

No it's not. If you are on the same plane, it is a parallel surface, not an adjacent surface.

If you are shooting from a higher elevation then it could be, but it's not an automatic thing unless your GM wants it to be, in which case it's their fault for giving more power to what should be a situational critical specialization.

I see Rangers more with a bow than a crossbow. It's curious how PF wants the Ranger to use crossbows.

I think it's more that a certain subset of players want to use crossbows (because it fits better with the "sniper" fantasy), and Pathfinder tries to accommodate that.

I'm thinking that perhaps a better idea would be to just bake Deadly Simplicity into all classes with full martial proficiency. That would also fix similar issues, like making spears useful for martials.

Sten43211 wrote:

The ground is an adjacent surface.

No it's not. If you are on the same plane, it is a parallel surface, not an adjacent surface.

If you are shooting from a higher elevation then it could be, but it's not an automatic thing unless your GM wants it to be, in which case it's their fault for giving more power to what should be a situational critical specialization.

I'm 99% sure the VAST majority of players and GMs counts the ground as an adjacent surface. It not being "adjacent" just because it's below you makes no sense. If that was the case, an enemy flying directly above me couldn't attack me in melee because I'm "not adjacent".

My players and I also count the ground as an adjacent surface. I think this is actually quite common.

I see Rangers more with a bow than a crossbow. It's curious how PF wants the Ranger to use crossbows.

It's not that PF2 wanted rangers to use crossbows, but rather that PF2 allows these to be viable as well.

In general, bow builds with the ranger take advantage of multiple attacks with a reduced MAP to get a greater chance of hitting and criticizing with it via repetition (flurry), while with crossbows the ranger focuses on strong shots that cause a lot of damage at once (precision).

Each has its advantage and disadvantage. The bow ranger typically has higher average damage in the end-game, but deals poorly with resistances, while the crossbow ranger can overcome them much better.

Unfortunately, the ranger just doesn't deal very well with firearms, as these were developed to only work efficiently in the hand of a character with a class or archetypes related to them.

I do not count the ground as adjacent. I do not remember meeting someone who counts it as adjacent though I play weekly PFS.

And if it was supposed to count as adjacent, that would be written in a clearer way.

I don't see why the floor isn't technically an adjacent surface, that's clear enough to me. The term adjacent does not mean that it needs to be next to you horizontally, vertically is also valid.
It is also a relatively common feat in pop culture for the archer to pin the target by their clothes to the ground.

I have also always read the ground as being an adjacent surface.
It's a surface and it's adjacent to you whenever you are standing on it.
Neither of those term have a special game meaning

That clause seems to be there to exclude those cases where there isn't anything for the target to be stuck to.
For instance a flying foe or one swimming in water.

As you can imagine, whether the ground is considered adjacent or not changes completely how powerful the critical effect is.

Right, if a creature has an ability that targets 'an adjacent creature', will I let it use that on the PC that it's hovering 5 ft over? Of course. Same with a bow crit.

I don't agree that it strongly resonates with the fiction most of the time (like, pinning someone's clothes to the ground is fine but how does that also do a boatload of damage?) but I'd say that if one is very sensitive about that kind of thing, PF2 is probably not the right ruleset to use anyways as it's rather gamified.

Right, if a creature has an ability that targets 'an adjacent creature', will I let it use that on the PC that it's hovering 5 ft over? Of course. Same with a bow crit.

I don't agree that it strongly resonates with the fiction most of the time (like, pinning someone's clothes to the ground is fine but how does that also do a boatload of damage?) but I'd say that if one is very sensitive about that kind of thing, PF2 is probably not the right ruleset to use anyways as it's rather gamified.

I would say that an arrow through the foot, might hurt a decent bit?

As far as adjacency is concerned, there is no mechanical difference between a wall next to a creature and the ground below a creature. A medium humanoid occupies a 5ft cube, any surface facing the creature of every cube next to it is adjacent.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Edit: No, Temp, you don't need Crossbow Crackshot, which is a bad fear because you have to reload the same turn you shoot to get the bonus. You want the Sniping Duo dedication. which gives you a circumstance bonus that will eventually outscale the old crossbow ace, lets you ignore lesser cover, and still benefit from backstabber.

Just going to say that still isn't quite the same. Sniping Duo locks you outnof other archetypes and require that the ally hits to get the benefit.

Yes it scales to +3 eventually. But Crossbow Ace was damage now and always.

You're right, it is not quite the same. It is better.

-Ignores lesser cover from spotter.
-Boosts spotter damage as well.
-"Locks you into" an incredible archetype for your build. Has a large number of reactions to further boost the damage of both you and your spotter.
-Now you have backstabber too.

Your spotter should be landing hits just about every round. You'll benefit from ignoring lesser cover or backstabber more often than you'll lose the circumstance damage bonus.

As far as adjacency is concerned, there is no mechanical difference between a wall next to a creature and the ground below a creature. A medium humanoid occupies a 5ft cube, any surface facing the creature of every cube next to it is adjacent.

I'm rereading that critical specialization effect and I'm starting to think the key part might actually be at the end: "The creature doesn't become stuck if it is incorporeal, is liquid (like a water elemental or some oozes), or could otherwise escape without effort."

Bolded for emphasis. Maybe the floor does count as adjacent, but not all floors. If combat takes places on the plains or a dirt road, the ground would not be solid enough to keep your opponent immobilized no matter how deep the arrow goes, since any little bit of force (like say a step) could easily knock it loose. It basically means the effect isn't as situational as I thought, but it's also not universal enough to compete with the flail critical specialization for best in the game.

If I am right though, I would like to see an errata that replaces "adjacent to a surface" with "within 5 feet of a solid surface". No one reasonably says "I dropped my keys adjacent to the floor" or "I slipped and fell adjacent my back" even if the sentence would make sense mechanically.

Still up to the GM to know when to say no to though. Short and Long Bows are the strongest ranged weapons in the game and they really don't need a stealth buff from a lenient GM ruling that effect triggering all the time, otherwise there was no need to give crossbows the new bleed specialization and present it as a buff. It would be a sidegrade at best and indeed, a nerf at worst.

That, more than anything else, should be telling.

I would say that an arrow through the foot, might hurt a decent bit?

Not as much as one through the knee, which can terminate your whole adventuring career.

breithauptclan wrote:

Unikatze wrote:

Just to clarify.

Warden spells now scaling up to master doesn't mean all Rangers will go back to having spells, right?

We can still build a fully martial, no magic Ranger?

I'm expecting so. The blog does mention that your Warden spells all come from feats still. So you can still choose to not take those feats.

What does seem to be built-in is the progression of spellcasting proficiency. So even Rangers that don't cast spells will end up being quite proficient at not casting spells.

Yup, based on the blog post wording I'm starting to wonder if the Ranger might end up being a pretty solid base as a Gish for someone who wants to NOT be a Magus but have a pretty decent secondary Spellcasting feature by way of MCA Archetypes since ALL Spellcasting Profs are not unified instead of being dependent on Tradition, that'd be pretty cool if true.

I like it. There was an idea I had way back either in the original playtest or right after where the Ranger was used as the base for a Magus-like class archetype. Guess I'll dust that off and see what I can do with it.

Guys at Paizo: I believe you are doing a great job in handling the remaster situation, I really do and I really love the game.
I want to just to say that it is OK to admit and OK to accept to have made mistakes. It is a complex system you are handling here and I believe you are more and more improving in the craftmanship of making PF2 fun and flavorful.

The ranger has many issues, some of which you are admitting here in what are majorly bug fixes here from oversights (spellcasting, crossbow ace not working with previously used hunter prey on tracks) but these do not answer the true problem of the class which is linked to its identity.

For what a ranger can offer today in matters of choices can be easily replaced by a fighter with a Beastmaster dedication, a gunslinger with scout maybe or just the thaumaturge. I mention this in terms of efficiency in a party AND in matter of flavor.

With the release of the gunslinger you gave this new class a head's up on the ranger in terms of combat capabilities and now you want to balance it up, understandable. But level 16? And only for those who chose to take spellcasting feats?

The class key feature that makes it different to other classes is today Hunter Prey. But... Hunter prey is a mandatory action that put the class in par with other ones. It is not an interesting choice like the Spellstrike of the magus or a Bon Mot before a will based spell that balances other choices, it IS the thing the ranger HAS to do to be even useful. And the advantage? Just to make the class what it is supposed to do. There is nothing that unique about Hunter Prey aside of making class features "working" or not. I believe that if you want to nail this weird class is to deal with this Hunter Prey thing. Maybe it could give instead bonuses to the allies to concentrate the efforts to a single creature, maybe it can be a combined action (action economy advantage) for the ranger to execute a certain action like striding towards the target, reloading, or even grappling that bear for those melee options. All of these could be linked to the class Hunter's Edge if you want like the different reloads works for the gunslinger.

TLDR: IMO fix hunter's prey or redesign the class in the newer eye with which you made the most recent classes: fun, useful and interesting.

Karmagator wrote:

As far as adjacency is concerned, there is no mechanical difference between a wall next to a creature and the ground below a creature. A medium humanoid occupies a 5ft cube, any surface facing the creature of every cube next to it is adjacent.

I'm rereading that critical specialization effect and I'm starting to think the key part might actually be at the end: "The creature doesn't become stuck if it is incorporeal, is liquid (like a water elemental or some oozes), or could otherwise escape without effort."

Bolded for emphasis. Maybe the floor does count as adjacent, but not all floors. If combat takes places on the plains or a dirt road, the ground would not be solid enough to keep your opponent immobilized no matter how deep the arrow goes, since any little bit of force (like say a step) could easily knock it loose. It basically means the effect isn't as situational as I thought, but it's also not universal enough to compete with the flail critical specialization for best in the game.

If I am right though, I would like to see an errata that replaces "adjacent to a surface" with "within 5 feet of a solid surface". No one reasonably says "I dropped my keys adjacent to the floor" or "I slipped and fell adjacent my back" even if the sentence would make sense mechanically.

Still up to the GM to know when to say no to though. Short and Long Bows are the strongest ranged weapons in the game and they really don't need a stealth buff from a lenient GM ruling that effect triggering all the time, otherwise there was no need to give crossbows the new bleed specialization and present it as a buff. It would be a sidegrade at best and indeed, a nerf at worst.

That, more than anything else, should be telling.

Speaking from experience, getting an arrow out of soil can often be a real pain. And it is never effortless. Especially when it has a tip meant for combat, the dirt is packed like a dirt road would be or the grass roots are being uncooperative again.

If we are talking logic, then this is also the only way this crit spec would ever reliably work. Bows have absolutely lousy penetration. At the insanely short ranges PF operates at they could probably injure an armored person, but piercing out of the other side? Unlikely. Even then it wouldn't properly stick into anything more substantial than dirt and even that is questionable. Same with anything larger or bulkier than a human, armored or not.

On the mechanics side, this isn't a stealth buff, that is almost certainly the intent. None of the other critical specializations are up to GM disgression or even remotely as situational as you assume this one to be. There is no reason to assume that this one is suddenly a massive outlier. The part you highlighted is meant to catch any strange cases where this doesn't even make fantasy sense. For some reason the first and only thing I can think of is pudding.... ^^

And yes, this is roughly a sidegrade. All crit specs are supposed to be sidegreades, so why would that be strange? It wasn't presented as anything different either. They called it an "adjustment", the buff bit is purely people's misinterpretation. That's the exact reason the flail/hammer spec is getting nerfed - it's DC-based now, so it is far less domineering than before.

Guys at Paizo: I believe you are doing a great job in handling the remaster situation, I really do and I really love the game.

I want to just to say that it is OK to admit and OK to accept to have made mistakes. It is a complex system you are handling here and I believe you are more and more improving in the craftmanship of making PF2 fun and flavorful.

The ranger has many issues, some of which you are admitting here in what are majorly bug fixes here from oversights (spellcasting, crossbow ace not working with previously used hunter prey on tracks) but these do not answer the true problem of the class which is linked to its identity.

For what a ranger can offer today in matters of choices can be easily replaced by a fighter with a Beastmaster dedication, a gunslinger with scout maybe or just the thaumaturge. I mention this in terms of efficiency in a party AND in matter of flavor.

With the release of the gunslinger you gave this new class a head's up on the ranger in terms of combat capabilities and now you want to balance it up, understandable. But level 16? And only for those who chose to take spellcasting feats?

The class key feature that makes it different to other classes is today Hunter Prey. But... Hunter prey is a mandatory action that put the class in par with other ones. It is not an interesting choice like the Spellstrike of the magus or a Bon Mot before a will based spell that balances other choices, it IS the thing the ranger HAS to do to be even useful. And the advantage? Just to make the class what it is supposed to do. There is nothing that unique about Hunter Prey aside of making class features "working" or not. I believe that if you want to nail this weird class is to deal with this Hunter Prey thing. Maybe it could give instead bonuses to the allies to concentrate the efforts to a single creature, maybe it can be a combined action (action economy advantage) for the ranger to execute a certain action like striding towards the target, reloading, or even grappling that bear for...

While I do agree the Ranger has an identity problem, and wouldn't be in my top ten class lists for a PF3 player core... it definitely has a mechanical niche. They are just flat-out the best martial at truly long ranged combat. Gunslingers are great, but they can't ignore their second range increment or take far shot to double their effective range, and they also suffer from lower DPR when they aren't critting. A precision ranger hits super hard at range and flurry just puts out so many more shots.

Rangers also make the games best switch hitters because unlike fighters and gunslingers their proficiency and damage boosters aren't limited to one weapon group. They also aren't limited by melee, weapon traits, or needing to keep a hand occupied. Plus in class quick draw.

Those advantages are really driven home in their natural habitat, the wilderness. A "standard" indoor dungeon crawl doesn't play to them, but in a campaign like Kingmaker or Ironfang Invasion the Ranger can dictate the terms of engagement like no other. You can Survey Wildlife to identify and Hunt dangerous creatures ahead of time, track where you are likely to find them, and then shoot them with 400 feet of difficult terrain (which you ignore) between you. The problem is not every campaign works like that, so it feels like a better class for a "How of the Wild" type supplement than a core class, and may end up in that bucket eventually to distinguish Pathfinder's brand from DND. Also, to a lesser extent you need to make sure your party is willing to play to those strengths too, but any martial who is unwilling to partake in starting fights at long range is not one I want to party with.

Snares were also enormously powerful in these sorts of engagements, so losing them hurts, but honestly the archetype was already stronger and easier to access for rangers.

Also, most of the Hunt Prey options you mentioned are covered by feats already. Actions economy compressors: twin takedown, favored enemy, hunted shot, monster hunter. Ally boosts: Master Monster Hunter, Warden's Boon, Shared Prey.

Edit: I'll note Paizo isn't going to be taking your suggestion because the class is already finished and off to the printers. These previews are not for a playtest where they can incorporate feedback, it is wet the appetite and drive sales of content already finalized.

Nexedo Selias wrote:

Guys at Paizo: I believe you are doing a great job in handling the remaster situation, I really do and I really love the game.

I want to just to say that it is OK to admit and OK to accept to have made mistakes. It is a complex system you are handling here and I believe you are more and more improving in the craftmanship of making PF2 fun and flavorful.

The ranger has many issues, some of which you are admitting here in what are majorly bug fixes here from oversights (spellcasting, crossbow ace not working with previously used hunter prey on tracks) but these do not answer the true problem of the class which is linked to its identity.

For what a ranger can offer today in matters of choices can be easily replaced by a fighter with a Beastmaster dedication, a gunslinger with scout maybe or just the thaumaturge. I mention this in terms of efficiency in a party AND in matter of flavor.

With the release of the gunslinger you gave this new class a head's up on the ranger in terms of combat capabilities and now you want to balance it up, understandable. But level 16? And only for those who chose to take spellcasting feats?

The class key feature that makes it different to other classes is today Hunter Prey. But... Hunter prey is a mandatory action that put the class in par with other ones. It is not an interesting choice like the Spellstrike of the magus or a Bon Mot before a will based spell that balances other choices, it IS the thing the ranger HAS to do to be even useful. And the advantage? Just to make the class what it is supposed to do. There is nothing that unique about Hunter Prey aside of making class features "working" or not. I believe that if you want to nail this weird class is to deal with this Hunter Prey thing. Maybe it could give instead bonuses to the allies to concentrate the efforts to a single creature, maybe it can be a combined action (action economy advantage) for the ranger to execute a certain action like striding towards the target, reloading,

...

Really appreciated your take, but yeah, we clearly see it differently :) mostly in correlation with the other classes as well.

The action economies you are mentioning are not really what I am proposing as an idea and I am aware of the one you highlight for sure.

Although I believe as well they will not take into consideration a random comment in their feed, I believe however they need to hear it for future considerations like they clearly did for what they did so far.

1d10, reload 1, backstabber.

Interesting!

No one reasonably says "I dropped my keys adjacent to the floor" or "I slipped and fell adjacent my back" even if the sentence would make sense mechanically.

Almost like they were using adjacent to represent any adjacent surface, not just the floor.

"I leant against the vertical surface adjacent to me", ajacent surfaces can't be walls either with that logic because "nobody reasonably says" that either.

Fabricating ridiculous examples to discredit other peoples arguments isn't a classy move in general.

As for GM "leniency" the floor is literally adjacent by definition, deciding on a restrictive non literal reading of a critical specialisation so that it turns into an extremely situational ability is more of a GM being overly restrictive.

And finally, I think you would find that it is harder to retrieve a bolt or arrow that pierces soil... and if we are talking realism, surely you would start by saying stone or metal couldn't be surfaces you could pin something to before settling on the packed earth of a road :p (not that I am suggesting using real world logic with Pathfinder rules).

Has a large number of reactions to further boost the damage of both you and your spotter.

This does also raise another problem with crossbows (and loading weapons in general): you usually need twice as many reaction options as anyone else, because half of them get disabled by not having a loaded weapon. 3.5 of Sniping Duo's four reactions (Exploit Opening, Deflecting Shot, Redirecting Shot, and half of Tag Team) suffer from this. If you're trying to Strike as often as you can, you're ending some fraction of your rounds unloaded.

I'm sure in optimal situations it shakes out mostly okay, but it can be frustrating to contort your action economy for only marginal gains over straightforward "Debilitating Shot, then Strike until the enemy is dead."

VictorTheII wrote:

No one reasonably says "I dropped my keys adjacent to the floor" or "I slipped and fell adjacent my back" even if the sentence would make sense mechanically.

Almost like they were using adjacent to represent any adjacent surface, not just the floor.

"I leant against the vertical surface adjacent to me", ajacent surfaces can't be walls either with that logic because "nobody reasonably says" that either.

Fabricating ridiculous examples to discredit other peoples arguments isn't a classy move in general.

As for GM "leniency" the floor is literally adjacent by definition, deciding on a restrictive non literal reading of a critical specialisation so that it turns into an extremely situational ability is more of a GM being overly restrictive.

And finally, I think you would find that it is harder to retrieve a bolt or arrow that pierces soil... and if we are talking realism, surely you would start by saying stone or metal couldn't be surfaces you could pin something to before settling on the packed earth of a road :p (not that I am suggesting using real world logic with Pathfinder rules).

I don't much allow pinning to the floor. They must be adjacent to a wall or other surface. I don't see critical hits smashing the leg when the archer is likely aiming for the body. It looks ridiculous to have that occur too often. I critical hit the lower leg and pinned their calf to the ground. I don't like it stylistically and thus don't use it.

I wish they would come up with a more thematically interesting bow crit.

I don't much allow pinning to the floor. They must be adjacent to a wall or other surface. I don't see critical hits smashing the leg when the archer is likely aiming for the body. It looks ridiculous to have that occur too often. I critical hit the lower leg and pinned their calf to the ground. I don't like it stylistically and thus don't use it.

I wish they would come up with a more thematically interesting bow crit.

And that is fine, but not the point I am making. Rules as written it is to an adjacent surface and the floor is usually an adjacent surface. If you or I rule differently it isn't because those who rule otherwise are being lenient.

Well I say it is fine, but really you do want to be giving the player something in exchange for houseruling a critspec away from them because you don't find it sensible to be aiming for a limb.

In my games I also hated it thematically, i gave the benefit of imobilize but said to the player that it would be described as a crippling blow rather than literally pinning to a surface (which is also stretching believability, but when the barbarian was cloud jumping and slaming into the ground with impressive landing and the rogue was growing dragon wings... we were already in fantasy superhero territory).

Captain Morgan wrote:

Has a large number of reactions to further boost the damage of both you and your spotter.

This does also raise another problem with crossbows (and loading weapons in general): you usually need twice as many reaction options as anyone else, because half of them get disabled by not having a loaded weapon. 3.5 of Sniping Duo's four reactions (Exploit Opening, Deflecting Shot, Redirecting Shot, and half of Tag Team) suffer from this. If you're trying to Strike as often as you can, you're ending some fraction of your rounds unloaded.

I'm sure in optimal situations it shakes out mostly okay, but it can be frustrating to contort your action economy for only marginal gains over straightforward "Debilitating Shot, then Strike until the enemy is dead."

Reload reactions tend to be much better than other long ranged reactions, though. You can cheese a lot of those requirements with a crossbow gauntlet, because you can take your hand off your weapon as a free action and then regrip it as part of the same action. Unfortunately, you can also use the same move to cheese using those super strong reactions with regular bows.

Aside from cheese, you can manipulate your actions economy to usually end your turn with a loaded weapon. Use two action attacks like Sniper's/Hunter's/Duo's aim and reload as your last action, or use one action attacks + some other contextual action you need that round. And those reactions are really good, so they are worth the effort to play around. If you have exploit opening and tag team you basically replace your -5 attacks with -2 attacks which trigger every round, or giving your partner a free strike without penalty instead. Any of which is an amazing boon to your party's consistent DPR.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't much allow pinning to the floor. They must be adjacent to a wall or other surface. I don't see critical hits smashing the leg when the archer is likely aiming for the body. It looks ridiculous to have that occur too often. I critical hit the lower leg and pinned their calf to the ground. I don't like it stylistically and thus don't use it.

I wish they would come up with a more thematically interesting bow crit.

And that is fine, but not the point I am making. Rules as written it is to an adjacent surface and the floor is usually an adjacent surface. If you or I rule differently it isn't because those who rule otherwise are being lenient.

Well I say it is fine, but really you do want to be giving the player something in exchange for houseruling a critspec away from them because you don't find it sensible to be aiming for a limb.

In my games I also hated it thematically, i gave the benefit of imobilize but said to the player that it would be described as a crippling blow rather than literally pinning to a surface (which is also stretching believability, but when the barbarian was cloud jumping and slaming into the ground with impressive landing and the rogue was growing dragon wings... we were already in fantasy superhero territory).

I wasn't real sure the floor counts as an adjacent surface. When I looked it up, math seems to indicate adjacent is to the various sides and the floor is more of an opposite. I imagine you could look at the sides as an opposite and the floor as adjacent. It was one of those words that seems not so great to use in one of these types of games where when you look it up and it becomes confusing.

Then coupled with the fact most creatures don't stand near walls. Then contemplating if some large or huge creature would even notice a pin prick of an arrow sticking it too wall. Would the arrow really stick into stone given most dungeons have stone walls.

I need to rewrite this crit. It's not a very good critical specialization stylistically. It looks so bad in my mind's eye. Probably why I forget about it so often. I want something simpler and not so difficult to visualize.

Thanks for bringing this up. I need to take care of this. It's been something I've disliked for so long.

1d10, reload 1, backstabber.

Interesting!

Yeah. I still think reload 1 or even reload 2 on a weapon you have to crank with a winch to reload is a bit much.

With those changes and the backstabber trait of the arbalest, Crossbow Rangers will make good assassins.

The Assassin archetype gives a +2 bonus to deception against your marked target (useful for the new Crossbow Ace) and Expert Backstabber doubles the backstabber trait bonus damage.

rainzax wrote:

1d10, reload 1, backstabber.

Interesting!

Yeah. I still think reload 1 or even reload 2 on a weapon you have to crank with a winch to reload is a bit much.

Well, per reality "A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute" so it really should be reload 14.

Alternatively, we just design around gameplay and not realism.

With those changes and the backstabber trait of the arbalest, Crossbow Rangers will make good assassins.

The Assassin archetype gives a +2 bonus to deception against your marked target (useful for the new Crossbow Ace) and Expert Backstabber doubles the backstabber trait bonus damage.

Still no getting around that marking your target takes up your entire first turn.

Nexedo Selias wrote:

Guys at Paizo: I believe you are doing a great job in handling the remaster situation, I really do and I really love the game.

...

The class key feature that makes it different to other classes is today Hunter Prey. But... Hunter prey is a mandatory action that put the class in par with other ones. It is not an interesting choice like the Spellstrike of the magus or a Bon Mot before a will based spell that balances other choices, it IS the thing the ranger HAS to do to be even useful. And the advantage? Just to make the class what it is supposed to do.

Captain Morgan wrote:

While I do agree the Ranger has an identity problem, and wouldn't be in my top ten class lists for a PF3 player core

Which is really an admission of guilt. You don't like the character enough to take it but it is Ok?

it definitely has a mechanical niche. They are just flat-out the best martial at truly long ranged combat. Gunslingers are great, but they can't ignore their second range increment or take far shot to double their effective range, and they also suffer from lower DPR when they aren't critting.

The Ranger ability you are talking about is a 4th level feat that can easily be taken by other classes. Mostly Rangers don't even bother. Long range combat is occasional at most tables.

A precision ranger hits super hard at range and flurry just puts out so many more shots.

No. A precision ranger is a shade under par damage wise. Not terrible but not good either. Flurry is just not that great as an archer

Rangers also make the games best switch hitters because unlike fighters and gunslingers their proficiency and damage boosters aren't limited to one weapon group.

The Fighter can easily work around the proficiency with a level 2 feat like Mauler or Archer Dedication.

Those advantages are really driven home in their natural habitat, the wilderness. A "standard" indoor dungeon crawl doesn't play to them, but in a campaign like Kingmaker or Ironfang Invasion the Ranger can dictate the terms of engagement like no other. You can Survey Wildlife to identify and Hunt dangerous creatures ahead of time, track where you are likely to find them, and then shoot them with 400 feet of difficult terrain (which you ignore) between you. The problem is not every campaign works like that, so it feels like a better class for a "How of the Wild" type supplement than a core class, and may end up in that bucket eventually to distinguish Pathfinder's brand from DND.

No I don't see this role as something the Ranger owns. They should naratively. But mechanically not really.

Survey Wildlife is a terrible feat and a waste of ink. What GM wouldn't allow someone with the Nature skill to do this anyway?

Also, to a lesser extent you need to make sure your party is willing to play to those strengths too, but any martial who is unwilling to partake in starting fights at long range is not one I want to party with.

I agree that every PC should think about long range combat. But I wouldn't express it like this.

Some people take the completely opposite position: so the 3 of us are just going to sit around and fiddle our thumbs while you handle this this encounter?

Also, most of the Hunt Prey options you mentioned are covered by feats already. Actions economy compressors: twin takedown, favored enemy, hunted shot

Just not true at all and really missing the point. The Ranger has to buy these to be somewhat competitive, but they still have to waste actions to remain a bit behind the fighter who hasn't yet spent any of his extra feats. The ranger isn't terrible, it works. The class is well balanced compared to other games and previous editions. Many people still enjoy it. But it is clearly a touch under done.

Anyway lets wait and see how the whole remaster turns out.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Rangers also make the games best switch hitters because unlike fighters and gunslingers their proficiency and damage boosters aren't limited to one weapon group.

Things that those classes can easily work around proficiency with a level 2 feat like Mauler or Archer Dedication.

The Rangers damage boosters are often limited to once per round which is worse that one weapon group.

Gunslinger explicitly can not work around proficiency with dedications, it has a whole class feature about it in Singular Expertise

A lot of what Gortle listed causes the ranger to scale very poorly. That d8 precision at range for a marked target in those early levels is pretty great. That d8 precision until level 11 and up to 3d8 once per turn is very underwhelming.

Given how fast parties blow through enemies, a ranger might land one shot killing a wounded target using Hunted Shot, then have to use Hunt Prey, then fire again while trying to work in Gravity Weapon or move.

It makes for some really clunky, underwhelming play compared to rogues, fighters, and barbarians who all improve in a linear fashion with no real speed bumps improving on nearly every aspect of their core abilities as they level.

Whereas the ranger keeps this Hunt Prey action tax in place from level 1 and its Hunter's Edge abilities don't scale fast enough and top out high enough so they feel very underwhelming.

I imagine most players as someone stated don't play much past level 10 to see how much the ranger lags the other martials in that higher end range.

One of my players loves rangers and was really disappointed in the poor high level performance.

Gortle wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Rangers also make the games best switch hitters because unlike fighters and gunslingers their proficiency and damage boosters aren't limited to one weapon group.

Things that those classes can easily work around proficiency with a level 2 feat like Mauler or Archer Dedication.

The Rangers damage boosters are often limited to once per round which is worse that one weapon group.

Gunslinger explicitly can not work around proficiency with dedications, it has a whole class feature about it in Singular Expertise

Agreed. Poorly expressed. This is just the Fighter. Not that the Gunslinger is terrible as a switch hitter. Edited my post for clarity.

Just to add, it's even worse for a martial ranger who has to not only Hunt Prey, but move to a new target. So your actions are really getting hammered at high level preventing you from using your best advantage of multiple attacks with a low MAP as Hunt Prey with Move really drains actions. Makes melee rangers a class to really avoid past level 10.

Just to add, it's even worse for a martial ranger who has to not only Hunt Prey, but move to a new target. So your actions are really getting hammered at high level preventing you from using your best advantage of multiple attacks with a low MAP as Hunt Prey with Move really drains actions. Makes melee rangers a class to really avoid past level 10.

Different strokes; my 2handed battle-axe weilding orc precision ranger with animal companion and fighter dedication for power attack was one of my favorite characters to play despite the tight action economy. Loads of fun

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Just to add, it's even worse for a martial ranger who has to not only Hunt Prey, but move to a new target. So your actions are really getting hammered at high level preventing you from using your best advantage of multiple attacks with a low MAP as Hunt Prey with Move really drains actions. Makes melee rangers a class to really avoid past level 10.

Different strokes; my 2handed battle-axe weilding orc precision ranger with animal companion and fighter dedication for power attack was one of my favorite characters to play despite the tight action economy. Loads of fun

My posts aren't concerned with the subjective idea of an individual having fun.

My posts are concerned with comparative performance. When some other class is beating your damage by 50% or so, it's hard not to notice.

The player in question liked his character and likes the ranger. The problem occurs when he's looking at some other class like a barbarian or fighter vastly out damaging him with no problems in the action economy department.

In the particular group with the ranger, they were going against a maul fighter and a monk. Maul fighter was the top damage dog. And this ranger started off as a melee flurry ranger, but switched to archer when he found the terrible action economy problematic when the fighter moved from target to target crushing enemies while he had to hunt prey and move to do his schtick.

The other ranger was in a group with a champion and a rogue. Rogue was clearly crushing his capabilities in later levels.

Both were archers. Not sure how well a 2-hander precision ranger would do.

The animal companion falls off at higher levels as well and often gets wasted. But that isn't until level 15 or so.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Just to add, it's even worse for a martial ranger who has to not only Hunt Prey, but move to a new target. So your actions are really getting hammered at high level preventing you from using your best advantage of multiple attacks with a low MAP as Hunt Prey with Move really drains actions. Makes melee rangers a class to really avoid past level 10.

Different strokes; my 2handed battle-axe weilding orc precision ranger with animal companion and fighter dedication for power attack was one of my favorite characters to play despite the tight action economy. Loads of fun

My posts aren't concerned with the subjective idea of an individual having fun.

My posts are concerned with comparative performance. When some other class is beating your damage by 50% or so, it's hard not to notice.

The player in question liked his character and likes the ranger. The problem occurs when he's looking at some other class like a barbarian or fighter vastly out damaging him with no problems in the action economy department.

In the particular group with the ranger, they were going against a maul fighter and a monk. Maul fighter was the top damage dog. And this ranger started off as a melee flurry ranger, but switched to archer when he found the terrible action economy problematic when the fighter moved from target to target crushing enemies while he had to hunt prey and move to do his schtick.

The other ranger was in a group with a champion and a rogue. Rogue was clearly crushing his capabilities in later levels.

Both were archers. Not sure how well a 2-hander precision ranger would do.

The animal companion falls off at higher levels as well and often gets wasted. But that isn't until level 15 or so.

Yeah, and some people don't care about any of that so long as they are having fun. It's really difficult to have objective conversations about something that fundamentally is about player experience and fun.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Just to add, it's even worse for a martial ranger who has to not only Hunt Prey, but move to a new target. So your actions are really getting hammered at high level preventing you from using your best advantage of multiple attacks with a low MAP as Hunt Prey with Move really drains actions. Makes melee rangers a class to really avoid past level 10.

Different strokes; my 2handed battle-axe weilding orc precision ranger with animal companion and fighter dedication for power attack was one of my favorite characters to play despite the tight action economy. Loads of fun

My posts aren't concerned with the subjective idea of an individual having fun.

My posts are concerned with comparative performance. When some other class is beating your damage by 50% or so, it's hard not to notice.

The player in question liked his character and likes the ranger. The problem occurs when he's looking at some other class like a barbarian or fighter vastly out damaging him with no problems in the action economy department.

In the particular group with the ranger, they were going against a maul fighter and a monk. Maul fighter was the top damage dog. And this ranger started off as a melee flurry ranger, but switched to archer when he found the terrible action economy problematic when the fighter moved from target to target crushing enemies while he had to hunt prey and move to do his schtick.

The other ranger was in a group with a champion and a rogue. Rogue was clearly crushing his capabilities in later levels.

Both were archers. Not sure how well a 2-hander precision ranger would do.

The animal companion falls off at higher levels as well and often gets wasted. But that isn't until level 15 or so.

Yeah, and some people don't care about any of that so long as they are having fun. It's really difficult to have objective conversations about something that fundamentally is about player experience and...

It definitely is. A lot of people don't care about or look at the numbers as long as they feel like they're doing something useful.

But I DM a lot as well as play a lot. I feel it is important that I keep tabs on game issues as a DM to improve my players' experience in the game.

I think that I don't quite make that clear in these conversations. I play a lot of characters, but I DM the game a ton too as the primary DM of my group.

So when I'm doing DM analysis of why something isn't working well for my players, I have to figure out why and how to fix it, often with a house rule.

I switched to PF2 because I stopped even bothering to complain about PF1 as I had to do so much to fix that game that it wasn't worth complaining about. PF2 doesn't have near as many issues as PF1 and they are pretty easy fixes in my opinion. So much easier to have a focused conversation on PF2 class fixes.

Easiest ranger fix is have Hunt Prey improve as they level so they can eventually apply it as a free action or against multiple targets as they progress.

You could also remove the once per round targeting of Precision or slightly lower the damage and make it per hit. Mainly the hunt prey needs to be easier to switch once the target is dead.

I want to see first if they remove the Hunt Prey requirement from some of the feats to make them work smoother.

A free action Hunt Prey if you kill a target would probably work equally well too.

I would improve Hunt Prey to give the benefits of Outwit Edge.

Outwit by itself un my experience hasn't been popular compared to flurry or precision and getting a skills/defence bonus as part of focusing a target seems very huntery. I would at leadt give the option as a feat rather than an edge that just won't perform as well over the long game.

I would probably also consider giving a free RK check as part of applying it. As the ranger changes their focus they are thinking about what weaknesses/strengths the target has.

I don't mind the hunt prey action tax if I can combine it with rk or reload or a move. Fixes most of the issues with the ranger.

Crossbows still feel subpar but willing to see if that changes in play experience.

Main ranger issue is that hunt prey is an action tax that feels fair at level 1, but becomes increasingly worse as you level. They need it to either scale a lot better, or to make it so at least if your hunted prey dies, you can hunt prey as a free action or reaction on someone else.

A free action Hunt Prey if you kill a target would probably work equally well too.

Yeah this feels like the way to go. Rangers are the “Screw You in Particular” class for martials, so Hunt Prey seems appropriate even at the highest levels, but being able to change your target as a reaction and then eventually a free action feels necessary to maintain ease of play.

Honestly I thought that was already a thing, but I’m probably remembering investigator or something.

Yeah, Double Prey comes online as a level 12 feat.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A free action Hunt Prey if you kill a target would probably work equally well too.

Yeah this feels like the way to go. Rangers are the “Screw You in Particular” class for martials, so Hunt Prey seems appropriate even at the highest levels, but being able to change your target as a reaction and then eventually a free action feels necessary to maintain ease of play.

Honestly I thought that was already a thing, but I’m probably remembering investigator or something.

I think I'd rather they go the other way and make the mechanic feel more empowering.

Having to set up on every target is a pain when you're target changing frequently, but also means the Ranger should feel at its best when it has one sturdy enemy it can spend several rounds wailing away on.

Part of the problem though is that the Ranger isn't really all that special in its ideal situation either.

I think it would be nice if any changes helped the Ranger lean into its supposed strengths, rather than simply mitigating its weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, being able to change targets more easily would definitely be nice, but I also feel like it would inevitably kind of dilute the identity of a class that already struggles to define itself.

I enjoy the ranger (melee, dual weapon). Past lvl 10 it gets to be really interesting. Master monster hunter, double prey. Extra die from sneak, extra dies from elemental runes, a witch that adds status damage. Mass haste is often used in our party, meaning move and full attack. Master monster hunter with max Nature (wis second stat) gives loads of information. In a party with a rogue, were on par with damage. Soul forger with planar pain against resistances or to hit weaknesses in tough fights. At 18th level having 6 attacks at -2 is quite nice.

Had to pick a fight with a white dragon not long ago, the bow a secondary weapon also worked quite nicely. Ok, lesser runes, but coincidentally a fire rune...

As for the changes, as far as I read, I don't see much that would've impacted my choices. They sound fine, I might have picked up some focus spells which I haven't done for this character.