Player Core Preview: The Remastered Ranger

I really only saw the problem with Hunt Prey at high level when martial classes blow through things. We run with a five man group with a 3 to 2 martial to caster party build. Once the martials start hammering, they can blow things down. Fighter, barb, and rogue really start tearing through even high hit point pools.

The ranger can also do some good damage, but when they kill a target their feats and abilities require Hunt Prey on top of moving for melee martials. So this created this sort of bottleneck other martials did not have to deal with switching targets which severely hampered their abilities.

Archer crits can be used. So if the ranger using Hunted Shot killed the target on the first hit, suddenly he has this wasted attack until he takes a level 12 feat which feels like an action tax and a feat tax.

It was even worse for the Flurry Ranger. You build this flurry ranger with an animal companion and the flurry feats so that you can kill very fast, but when you take the target down you're suddenly stuck with these extra attacks that go to waste because you can only flurry against your hunted prey.

It made it far more worthwhile for the ranger to move off and try to solo enemies on their own because focusing on the same target and the others created way too many blow through opportunities leading to a lot of wasted attacks and slow target switching.

If they remove the Hunt Prey requirement from some feats, might end up better. We'll see the final form of it when it comes out.

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

Who said I didn't like character enough to take it? I said it had an identity problem and I don't think it should be a core class in PF3. It doesn't enable enough character concepts that "fighter with wilderness skill feats" couldn't. (And honestly nature/survival skill feats would probably be better if they didn't have to worry about niche protection for the ranger. Same for thievery for the rogue, or athletics for the monk or barbarian.)

I think the Ranger should be replaced with the Thaumaturge. Both fit the concept of a monster hunter. But interestingly enough, while the Thaumaturge has much more specific flavor it is actually broadly applicable to a larger number of games than the ranger. Eclectic knowledge works just as well in an intrigue campaign as the wilderness. Ranger is a better fit for non-core book like Howl of the Wild or Rage of the Elements. Core classes should be an OK fit for any campaign, not something which really needs a particular kind of campaign to stand out.

But I actually love playing it and have seen great success on multiple melee rangers up into the 10th level range, and an archer ranger into the 17th level range. A lot of the problems people complain about with Hunt Prey cycling can be offset by feats or not focusing firing the same enemy as your allies. A flurry ranger can shred mooks just fine with nothing but their animal companion as a flanking buddy, or by pinning enemies in place and slowing them from joining the fray.

I want my Ranger to look like a Dunedain Ranger or like something by Raymond Feist or John Flanagan. Instead it seems to have more in common with a video game.

But I'm happy for other people to get their Ranger concepts respected too. I think it is possible to cater for all types.

I don't get your references, but I can't refute your accusation about video games, because the PF2 Ranger plays quite similarly to one of my favorite video games, Horizon Zero Dawn (2017). Actually, what I liked about Horizon is it was the best a video game ever captured my personal vision of what being a ranger should feel like. There was definitely a DND influence there, and it may have in turn influenced the PF2 ranger.

I love the niche it fills myself. Taking the time to scout, study enemies from afar, and figure out how I can attack them in ways that are just unfair and don't allow retaliation? I love that stuff, and it is where the Ranger excels.

Long range combat is occasional at most tables.

It is much more impactful that Rangers don't get Point Blank Shot in class.

I think people undervalue the power of long range combat. I have seen few Paizo APs that didn't feature at least SOME extensive combat in wide open settings that long range characters can exploit. Some, like Kingmaker (which I am playing now as a Sukgung Gunslinger and wrecking all kinds of stuff) are almost entirely outdoor encounters that can start at long range.

I imagine it was also more common in old school D&D than in the modern day Paizo APs. From my second hand knowledge of AD&D, it felt much less focused on telling preset stories about saving the nation from one evil force, and more about wandering around the wilderness fighting monsters and stealing gold. Pre-Drawn dungeons that need to fit onto a page count and grid make ranged excellence harder, but even now there is plenty of variety.

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

I have no idea how to respond to this, because... They do? They just do. Even playing as a gunslinger with a 200 foot range increment I have had moments where I wished I was a ranger instead. Having the more consistent damage output of 2d10+1d8 instead of being crit reliant is nice, and even 200 feet has not always been sufficient to avoid a range increment penalty. A ranger with the horizon walker archetype is probably the most optimized character you could make for Kingmaker, and the rangers has tons of ways you can build to be the best at wilderness.

Now one problem the class suffers from is one of the worse class feat bottlenecks. Doing all the wilderness stuff to its full potential means (at least at some point) skipping more relevant combat feats. But that is also why I am encouraged by things like crossbow ace becoming an option feat for crossbow builds instead of a mandatory one.

The Ranger ability you are talking about is a 4th level feat that can easily be taken by other classes.

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

Yes, other classes can spend feats to catch up on the things Rangers don't have to spend feats or rely on archetypes for. So what? Those feats all have costs. Hunt Prey is built into the Ranger class, it lets you double your penalty free attack range without spending feats, and it does that as part of the core combat routine you need to do anyway for your edge and feats. While I think Far Shot is often overkill on a ranger, I can't see any other class even trying to make it work.

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?

Agree to disagree. I think the feat is dangerously ambiguous on how it defines "the area around you to find out what creatures are nearby." How near are we talking here? But if you are interpreting it to mean "anything we might encounter in the next few hours of travel until we stop for lunch or to use the bathroom" than I wouldn't let a character spend 10 minutes to get a sense of EVERY creature in that zone. OTOH, if it only works on what might be right around the corner and you're already finding signs of the creatures? Yeah, pretty bad. But anything that can let you roll multiple RK checks out of combat is worth consideration in my book.

Core classes should be an OK fit for any campaign, not something which really needs a particular kind of campaign to stand out.

I feel like how much the Ranger is put off here is kind of understated. The ranger has like... two class features, both of which are fairly minor, that stop working in a city.

And to be honest it'd be easier and better for Paizo to fix those than anything else.

I love the niche it fills myself. Taking the time to scout, study enemies from afar, and figure out how I can attack them in ways that are just unfair and don't allow retaliation? I love that stuff, and it is where the Ranger excels.

Then again, I also feel like you're describing things that aren't really particular to the Ranger here. The ranger gets a modest bonus to tracking and perception innately, provided it's something you can Hunt, but I'm not really sure I'd necessarily call that the core conceit of the class because that's really all it is, a couple moderate bonuses to skill checks.

masda_gib wrote:

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.

Have you considered maybe doing assassin things? Stealthily casing a joint, hanging back and studying a proud, boastful enemy while the others are bantering or challenging them, or finding a way to scout unseen or unrecognized all work.

If you have a few seconds outside combat, you can mark, and if you're being ambushed then no defending yourself from a surprise attack is not an ideal time to try to assassinate 'em, that being something that requires some planning and preparation. Which is fine, in my book, because the bonuses and extra benefits that can be gotten are good to have but not the core of a class's damage or whatever.

(That all said, the archetype's a bit nicer for switch-hitters since the base Mark For Death benefits agile/finesse melee weapons with extra traits, but everything else in the archetype is weapon-type-agnostic as far as I can tell, so it's a good option overall.)

I don't get your references

All book references. Google will get you there.

Even playing as a gunslinger with a 200 foot range increment I have had moments where I wished I was a ranger instead

So beyond 400 ft when you first begin to be lower to hit than a ranger? If your enemy can't return fire effectively attacking at -2 or -4 to hit is still a win.

I don't mind the long range play personally and I do engage in it a bit. The bulk of my groups prefer to close to melee as it does more damage faster and is a richer gameplay experience.

My players are all experienced enough to take the items to get themselves increases in speed. My current level 8 party in Kingmaker has one PC with 50ft land speed and another with 45. Most monsters cant compete with that. This week they were running down elite winter wolves. I'm coming around to Ronalds position that Longstrider is too powerful. Anyway the party can often control engagement range.

Sure the Ranger has an ability to ignore cover. But monsters can simply hide and sneak and then the Ranger doesn't even know where they are to target. There is almost always natural cover of some sort when you are talking about 400ft plus. Yes I apply penalties to perception checks at distance.

Problems:
Encounters can be trivialised if you let long range combat occur too much. Many published encounters just don't work. So then you end up naratively deciding the result and just move on to the other encounters that are actually a contest.

An archer could solo too much of such a game. Solo play is fine for a video game. That is not this game.

Online VTT maps struggle to handle long and short range combat.

I actually find the defensive long range fight more interesting for the players.

I would rather more scaling to the edges or maybe adding more benefits to them. A companion edge would fix the just use beast master problem and maybe free up a bunch of feats. Also getting another reaction like fighter/champion do and some more reaction feats would be great.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Core classes should be an OK fit for any campaign, not something which really needs a particular kind of campaign to stand out.

I feel like how much the Ranger is put off here is kind of understated. The ranger has like... two class features, both of which are fairly minor, that stop working in a city.

And to be honest it'd be easier and better for Paizo to fix those than anything else.

Quote:

I love the niche it fills myself. Taking the time to scout, study enemies from afar, and figure out how I can attack them in ways that are just unfair and don't allow retaliation? I love that stuff, and it is where the Ranger excels.

Then again, I also feel like you're describing things that aren't really particular to the Ranger here. The ranger gets a modest bonus to tracking and perception innately, provided it's something you can Hunt, but I'm not really sure I'd necessarily call that the core conceit of the class because that's really all it is, a couple moderate bonuses to skill checks.

The tracking and perception bonuses have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The following Ranger abilities stop mattering in a city or a closed off dungeon:

Hunt Prey ignoring the second range increment of your weapon. This is a huge tactical advantage which urban campaigns and indoor dungeons don't tend to allow you to leverage. In a wilderness campaign, it can trivialize many encounters. Attacking from 200+ feet away usually means that enemies either die before they reach you or are so softened up they might as well be.

Trackless Step. The Pathfinder Avoid Notice rules are a lot more generous than people realize once you factor in cover bonuses and the fact that you only become hidden on a regular failure. The rules were written that way to allow for characters to plausibly get away on a failed check. It's great. Except... most characters can't Cover Tracks and Avoid Notice at the same time. Which means the enemy can Track you in most wilderness terrain with a much lower DC than your stealth. (Fun fact, you can also use this to locate enemies easier they go invisible.) Any dex based class can scout, but the ranger is the only one which you can rely on to not lead the enemy back to your camp.

Speaking of lower tracking DCs, outdoor encounters make it much easier to consistently prebuff Hunt Prey. Rangers who begin combat without the action deficit are going to have a better time.

Nature's Edge. A little more fringe, but I reckon this probably comes up more often than people realize or remember to apply it.

Wild Stride. It comes on late, unless you want Favored Terrain instead. But it synergizes nicely with the above abilities. Enemies will take even longer to reach you with the right positioning, and you'll be even harder for them to catch if you need to run.

That's most of their unique class features, and we haven't even touched upon feats. I count at least 9 in the CRB which areeade specifically for natural terrain, and that is without counting the animal companion feats even though your bear is much more likely to draw unwanted attention in the city. You also get nature and survival training built into your class.

And yeah, you can ignore most of those features and still have a functional character in an indoor game. But that is when you're left with a less strong fighter with extra steps. You stop having a mechanical or thematic niche, which I think is what a lot of the complaints boil down to.

Wild Stride is the only one of those that's going to come up with any degree of regularity, and even then not especially.

None of those are especially important or significant systems. The strongest is definitely the range increment, but that's something that requires a significant GM buy in and is frankly just not how most premade Pathfinder content is designed.

... So again, barely anything changes, it hardly matters at all, and frankly it's kind of goofy that Paizo still hasn't published some urban ranger options to fix that yet since that's been so standard in previous editions (maybe the remaster just does away with the natural terrain restrictions, here's hoping).

Hunt Prey ignoring the second range increment of your weapon.

I think this is mostly good for short range and thrown weapons.

Trackless Step. The Pathfinder Avoid Notice rules are a lot more generous than people realize once you factor in cover bonuses and the fact that you only become hidden on a regular failure.

Yes that is a good bonus.

I've recently come around to liking the alchemical crossbow. Doubling the effective range of short range weapons like it can be pretty significant too, and may be more relevant in claustrophobic maps.

Wild Stride is the only one of those that's going to come up with any degree of regularity, and even then not especially.

None of those are especially important or significant systems. The strongest is definitely the range increment, but that's something that requires a significant GM buy in and is frankly just not how most premade Pathfinder content is designed.

... So again, barely anything changes, it hardly matters at all, and frankly it's kind of goofy that Paizo still hasn't published some urban ranger options to fix that yet since that's been so standard in previous editions (maybe the remaster just does away with the natural terrain restrictions, here's hoping).

Don't get how you can think Wild Stride will come up more often than Nature's Edge, given Nature's Edge comes up earlier and is more relevant to ranged characters as well as melee. If there's difficult terrain for Wild Stride to matter, odds are there is difficult terrain for Nature's Edge to. It is also worth noting that I'm pretty sure spells like Cave Fangs or How long Blizzard trigger Nature's Edge but not Wild Stride, which annoys me but means you force enemies to really suffer with teamwork still.

And the range increment doesn't really require GM buy in. It just requires a map that is open ended enough for it to matter and you successfully leaning into some combination of stealth and survival to identify the enemy's location before it spots you. I agree that like 60%-70% of premade content doesn't allow for that... which is what I already said the problem is and why the class shouldn't be core. I don't really think making the class more generic is the answer.

Trackless Step is also one that should come up any time the Ranger is scouting outdoors... and the Ranger should always be scouting outdoors. I don't think people scout very often because they are paranoid about splitting the party or misunderstand how Avoid Notice interacts with the hidden condition, but they really should. Knowledge is power in this game.

And the range increment doesn't really require GM buy in. It just requires a map that is open ended enough for it to matter and you successfully leaning into some combination of stealth and survival to identify the enemy's location before it spots you.

I mean that's all GM fiat.

I agree that like 60%-70% of premade content doesn't allow for that... which is what I already said the problem is and why the class shouldn't be core.

Right, and I'm saying it doesn't really make sense to write off a whole class because some very niche and minor class features aren't always going to be relevant.

Captain Morgan wrote:

And the range increment doesn't really require GM buy in. It just requires a map that is open ended enough for it to matter and you successfully leaning into some combination of stealth and survival to identify the enemy's location before it spots you.

I mean that's all GM fiat.

Quote:

I agree that like 60%-70% of premade content doesn't allow for that... which is what I already said the problem is and why the class shouldn't be core.

Right, and I'm saying it doesn't really make sense to write off a whole class because some very niche and minor class features aren't always going to be relevant.

None of that is GM fiat unless you're running theater of the mind, maybe. Anything with a pre-drawn map has set dimensions and terrain. The stealth rules are extremely clearcut about what you need to attempt Avoiding Notice and what DCs you need to hit for it to be successful. The rules on tracking in different terrains are also extremely clear, and go from DC 15 or 20 for fresh tracks in most outdoor environments to DC 30 on a stone floor. A ranger can't consistently hit DC 30 until late in their career, so bad terrain will make them worse. If you tell your GM you want to Avoid Notice or Track, they don't need to rely on fiat. They just do what the rules say.

To the second part, I'm realizing we have had this argument before, so I'm just going to quote myself:

If you strip those things away, what are you left with? A martial class that focuses on things one at time... Like all martials usually do. A niche with crossbows usurped by the gunslinger. A bonus to track fleeing foes, in a system where the only good ways to flee are flight, teleportation, and other untraceable methods. The class identity is just super thin beyond nature stuff. (Or stuff that is effectively nature stuff due to map size like the range increment.)

I'd rather have most of the ranger feats become either archetypes (eg sniper) or skill feats (ranger skill based class feats are really the power bar skills feats should have gone for all along, IMO) than have it take a spot that could go to a more distinct thing like the Thaumaturge or kineticist. And I say that as someone who generally likes the class now.

I will say there is one build which will be notably worse after with the new crossbow ace feat: the alchemical crossbow ranger. Which is a bummer, I'd like if that thing stayed relevant.

What is the fate of Harsk?

What is the fate of Harsk?

Well he's up there in the preview image... has anyone ever said anything that implied the iconics' fates might be up in the air? As far as I know his fate is to be Harsk.

One hopes they change his art a little to give him an arbalest. He will still be unoptimized but at least he'll have a respectable weapon.

The rules on tracking in different terrains are also extremely clear, and go from DC 15 or 20 for fresh tracks in most outdoor environments to DC 30 on a stone floor. A ranger can't consistently hit DC 30 until late in their career, so bad terrain will make them worse. If you tell your GM you want to Avoid Notice or Track, they don't need to rely on fiat. They just do what the rules say.

What's the DC for a stone floor covered with 500 years worth of dust?

Captain Morgan wrote:

The rules on tracking in different terrains are also extremely clear, and go from DC 15 or 20 for fresh tracks in most outdoor environments to DC 30 on a stone floor. A ranger can't consistently hit DC 30 until late in their career, so bad terrain will make them worse. If you tell your GM you want to Avoid Notice or Track, they don't need to rely on fiat. They just do what the rules say.

What's the DC for a stone floor covered with 500 years worth of dust?

I think the official rule book answer to this question is:

Was a bit concerned until Michael confirmed rangers aren't back to being spellcasters by default.
Do not love the new Crossbow Ace... feels worse. Admittedly, my main crossbow user is a rogue/ranger, and if they just added Hide on there in addition to Take Cover and Create a Diversion I wouldn't hate it at as much... but rn it just feels like a damage loss AND a worse action economy.

Do not love the new Crossbow Ace... feels worse. Admittedly, my main crossbow user is a rogue/ranger, and if they just added Hide on there in addition to Take Cover and Create a Diversion I wouldn't hate it at as much... but rn it just feels like a damage loss AND a worse action economy.

I kind of agree. A 3rd option to hide would probably also be on point for rangers and open the feat up to being that much more useful in more situations something that a lot of feats need.

I wonder if "Take Cover" or "Create a diversion" is going to be generally more useful than "+2 damage' which the gunslinger can get with "crossbow crack-shot."

I assume the arbalest is going to make crossbow gunslingers more popular.

I assume the arbalest is going to make crossbow gunslingers more popular.

People will probably appreciate another option that doesn't require STR besides the taw launcher/sukung and ofc it's new, so we'll probably see an uptick. It's still the niche of a niche, though, so I wouldn't expect a substantial change.

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

I wonder if "Take Cover" or "Create a diversion" is going to be generally more useful than "+2 damage' which the gunslinger can get with "crossbow crack-shot."

I assume the arbalest is going to make crossbow gunslingers more popular.

Crossbow Crackshot was just not a good feat for gunslingers. It was actually only +1 damage since it didn't stack with the inherent circumstance bonuses gunslingers already had. The damage dice increase on top of that could be relevant if you wanted to use simple crossbows for some reason. But the problem is you need to reload > shoot in that order during the same turn, which has terrible synergy for things like covered reload and fake out, and only works on your second, less important attack on a two attack round. Crossbow Ace 1.0 didn't really have this problem outside of prey you hunt before encounters begin.

About the only weapon I can justify crossbow crackshot for is the alchemical crossbow. But for that you also need munitions crafter. Both are first level feats and you can't afford to go back for old feats when you need Fake Out, Running Reload, and so on.

Crossbow gunslingers should probably stick to the fatal sukgung. The arbalest is better for rangers with the higher base damage dice. It also just LOOKS like a ranger weapon where the sukgung has a more modern metalic look.

Ed Reppert wrote:

From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)

And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.

Perhaps in PF3, when such mechanics can be incorporated into the core game from the beginning?

(This, I feel, would make them more like the backpack catapults we see now.)

Man I hope they fix snares. They're an absolute mess. Many people didn't even know if you were allowed to buy them, craft them at home, disarm and recover them in the field, find them as treasure, or stock up on them using class abilities. People couldn't even tell you if they were objects FFS!

Are Enemies Aware of Snares placed in Combat?
(No thread for this one, but I hear this one a lot.)

Are Snares Objects?

Are Snares Useless?

Are Snares Weapons?

Can you Buy a Snare?

Can You Use Poison Consumables On Snares?
(No thread for this one, but I hear this one a lot.)

Can you Collect Snares in Their Incomplete Form?

Crafting Snares: I'm Confused; How Do you Do It?

Crafting Snares with Downtime Limited to a Specific Square?

Do Bonus Snares Decay at End of Day?

Does Not Compute: Kobold Snare Setter

Duration of Snares?

How Do Ranger Snares Work?

How Many Actions Does it Take to Set a Snare?

How Obvious/Hidden Is Snare Quick Deployment?

Mazes and Snares

On the Reusability of Snares

Please Help Me Understand the Mechanics of Snares

Ranger Snares: Incomplete Design?

Rookie Question About Snares

Snare Crafting Times

Snare Setter Kobold Seems Wrong

Snares, Snare Kits, and Their Issues

Snares?????

Snares, Snarecrafter and Kobolds - Help?

Snares as Treasure (1)

Snares as Treasure (2)

Specialty Crafting and Snares?

Still No Kobold Snares

Think I Found the Biggest Trap Feat in the Whole Game

Trying to Understand "Your Crafting DC" as it is Used in Regards to Snares

Understanding Snares

Using Snares "During" Combat

What's the Range to Build a Snare?

There are tons more discussions out there what's more. Sorry for the wall of links, but I think it helps drive the point home: Nobody really knows how snares work.

Not to mention snares are utter garbage in Society play. In PFS you'd think asking one or more players (or the GM) to cooperate with you is tantamount to asking them to kill their mum.

My kobold rogue has set up over 60 snares over the course of 8 levels in Society. Of those I have only ever triggered three; two of which were against allies.

One game shop basically told me to stop and "play like a normal rogue" or they were going to kick me out.

Temperans wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)

And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.

Perhaps in PF3, when such mechanics can be incorporated into the core game from the beginning?

(This, I feel, would make them more like the backpack catapults we see now.)

I think Pathfinder wants to be a game where enemies (and PCs) don't go down after being struck by a single arrow, or after a single solid hit with a large axe. As a result, no weapons are going to be as deadly as they are IRL.

The model for this is less "realism" and more "nobody really thinks it's weird in video games when you have to shoot/stab the thing over and over again." It's a gamist mechanic, not a realist mechanic.

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

2. There is still the Sling confusion, where Sling is both a weapon category and a specific weapon. As a result, it is unclear whether things like Titan Slinger affect the halfling staff sling or not. I hope this is cleared up in the Titan Slinger feat instead.

Slings could definitely use some love.

Honesty slings should have a reload 0. This would give simple weapon users a better ranged weapon. Also, are you telling me that a sling takes the same amount of time to reload as a crossbow, with a wrenching mechanism? (Artwork of the arbalest)

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

Yeah honestly it felt like heavy crossbows were d10s just so crossbow ace worked with them, I feel like them and arbalests could just be d12 weapons (with arbalest losing backstabber). But a bit late for that I guess.

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

Yeah honestly it felt like heavy crossbows were d10s just so crossbow ace worked with them, I feel like them and arbalests could just be d12 weapons (with arbalest losing backstabber). But a bit late for that I guess.

something you guys missed. Arbalest has a reload 1. Heavy crossbow has reload 2.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

2. There is still the Sling confusion, where Sling is both a weapon category and a specific weapon. As a result, it is unclear whether things like Titan Slinger affect the halfling staff sling or not. I hope this is cleared up in the Titan Slinger feat instead.

Slings could definitely use some love.

Honesty slings should have a reload 0. This would give simple weapon users a better ranged weapon. Also, are you telling me that a sling takes the same amount of time to reload as a crossbow, with a wrenching mechanism? (Artwork of the arbalest)

Try putting a stone in your sling and throwing it right away without swinging the sling first. Expect much disappointment.

The reload time for the sling includes the swinging needed to gather enough energy to make your stone deadly.

MEATSHED wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

Yeah honestly it felt like heavy crossbows were d10s just so crossbow ace worked with them, I feel like them and arbalests could just be d12 weapons (with arbalest losing backstabber). But a bit late for that I guess.

something you guys missed. Arbalest has a reload 1. Heavy crossbow has reload 2.

I am aware.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

They loose out on the +2 but the higher damage die is more consistent in application than the simple crossbow boost. Seems like it evens out. Also, the rotary bow exists.

Dragonhearthx wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

2. There is still the Sling confusion, where Sling is both a weapon category and a specific weapon. As a result, it is unclear whether things like Titan Slinger affect the halfling staff sling or not. I hope this is cleared up in the Titan Slinger feat instead.

Slings could definitely use some love.

Honesty slings should have a reload 0. This would give simple weapon users a better ranged weapon. Also, are you telling me that a sling takes the same amount of time to reload as a crossbow, with a wrenching mechanism? (Artwork of the arbalest)

Try putting a stone in your sling and throwing it right away without swinging the sling first. Expect much disappointment.

The reload time for the sling includes the swinging needed to gather enough energy to make your stone deadly.

still think it would be faster that a crossbow. Also the halfling sling staff is described as a modern rubber band sling. Which is just as fast as a bow but reload 1 still.

A slingshot like weapon that's a D4 with propulsive and reload 0 would be pretty cool.

A slingshot like weapon that's a D4 with propulsive and reload 0 would be pretty cool.

as long as it is still a simple weapon. Sure I guess. Backstabber would be fitting to.

The Raven Black wrote:

Dragonhearthx wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

2. There is still the Sling confusion, where Sling is both a weapon category and a specific weapon. As a result, it is unclear whether things like Titan Slinger affect the halfling staff sling or not. I hope this is cleared up in the Titan Slinger feat instead.

Slings could definitely use some love.

Honesty slings should have a reload 0. This would give simple weapon users a better ranged weapon. Also, are you telling me that a sling takes the same amount of time to reload as a crossbow, with a wrenching mechanism? (Artwork of the arbalest)

Try putting a stone in your sling and throwing it right away without swinging the sling first. Expect much disappointment.

The reload time for the sling includes the swinging needed to gather enough energy to make your stone deadly.

still think it would be faster that a crossbow. Also the halfling sling staff is described as a modern rubber band sling. Which is just as fast as a bow but reload 1 still.

With Reload 0, it would be far better than the Composite Longbow.

A slingshot like weapon that's a D4 with propulsive and reload 0 would be pretty cool.

I could see that as Simple if it was 1+ hands

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

A number of builds are losing value from this change. But that number, so far, seems to be 2. Hand crossbows and alchemical crossbows seem to be it, and Arbalest plus Sniper's Duo is a straight damage upgrade over your old regular crossbow ace. You do lose 10 feet of range, which feels bad, but going from 240 foot range to 220 foot range is not a meaningful difference, even to me the ranged guy. And heavy repeating crossbow remains an option if you want the most range.

Hand crossbows and alchemical crossbows both seemed better on a gunslinger than a ranger to begin with. Hand crossbow is more of a quick draw weapon so it doesn't play nice with the reload/hunt prey requirements of the old Crossbow Ace, and alchemical crossbow needs access to bombs.

For the majority of crossbow ranger builds, this remains a buff when you look at the system as a whole and not the preview alone. It also creates room for more viable builds in the first place.

Arbalest plus Sniper's Duo is a straight damage upgrade over your old regular crossbow ace.

With a bit of an asterisks on that, considering the investment is significantly higher, the damage bonus takes a while to become meaningful, and it's (somewhat) more conditional than an automatic action you would have done anyways since failed strikes mean no damage bonus.

You do lose 10 feet of range, which feels bad, but going from 240 foot range to 220 foot range is not a meaningful difference, even to me the ranged guy.

I agree it's not meaningful, but any conscious decision to weaken an already mediocre build is still very strange.

Hand crossbows and alchemical crossbows both seemed better on a gunslinger than a ranger to begin with

And again, "the build wasn't that strong to begin with" is a very bizarre way to justify a nerf.

It also creates room for more viable builds in the first place.

Does it? Your suggestion is investing in a specific archetype, which narrows build options significantly more than taking a specific level 1 feat.

in pf1e, had a gunslinger archetype crossbow ace. was badass diablo 3 demon hunter, dual wielding hand crossbows. technically, not per rules but GM allowed it as you could technically do it with proper dual wielding pistol gunslinger (with pistol of the infinite sky) so why the hell not with crossbows, right? didn't muck around with prehensile tail or any of that bs. just wrote it off as magic items and it was fun but also not gamebreaking. would be cool to see some of that work in pf2e

Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, let's keep in mind that Crossbow Ace being worse does not mean that crossbow rangers are worse. Arbalest having a higher baseline means you can skip Ace and stack other feats to get a higher total damage.

Okay, but it's just a simple point of fact that a number builds are losing value because of this change, even though they were never very good to begin with. Arbalest is mostly a side grade (although it's still slightly less damage and slightly less range for no discernible reason), and there's no math that makes this a win for hand or alchemical crossbows.

I don't think we can just browbeat people into being excited about that when those people were probably expecting their niche, underpowered builds to get better rather than worse.

The Arbalest is a reasonable option. It is good to see.

I might choose to take a crossbow based Gunslinger (especially if the GM didn't want firearms in the game for thematic reasons), but it is still not going to make me want to take a crossbow Ranger.

With Reload 0, it would be far better than the Composite Longbow.

Because the composite longbow has the volley trait?

The Raven Black wrote:

With Reload 0, it would be far better than the Composite Longbow.

Because the composite longbow has the volley trait?

If you're talking about the sling staff, a d10 reload 0 weapon is better than any other ranged weapon. Just take a look at the barricade buster. That thing takes some serious downgrades to get that damage output. Plus it's advanced.

Dragonhearthx wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

With Reload 0, it would be far better than the Composite Longbow.

Because the composite longbow has the volley trait?

If you're talking about the sling staff, a d10 reload 0 weapon is better than any other ranged weapon. Just take a look at the barricade buster. That thing takes some serious downgrades to get that damage output. Plus it's advanced.

I had mentioned the sling staff, but the main topic is the standard sling. Standard sling should have a reload 0.

aobst128 wrote:

Dragonhearthx wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

With Reload 0, it would be far better than the Composite Longbow.

Because the composite longbow has the volley trait?

If you're talking about the sling staff, a d10 reload 0 weapon is better than any other ranged weapon. Just take a look at the barricade buster. That thing takes some serious downgrades to get that damage output. Plus it's advanced.

I had mentioned the sling staff, but the main topic is the standard sling. Standard sling should have a reload 0.

I see. That would probably put it in martial tier though.

I see. That would probably put it in martial tier though.

and defeat the whole purpose. Of having a simple range weapon at reload 0.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Arbalest plus Sniper's Duo is a straight damage upgrade over your old regular crossbow ace.

With a bit of an asterisks on that, considering the investment is significantly higher, the damage bonus takes a while to become meaningful, and it's (somewhat) more conditional than an automatic action you would have done anyways since failed strikes mean no damage bonus.

Quote:

You do lose 10 feet of range, which feels bad, but going from 240 foot range to 220 foot range is not a meaningful difference, even to me the ranged guy.

I agree it's not meaningful, but any conscious decision to weaken an already mediocre build is still very strange.

Quote:

Hand crossbows and alchemical crossbows both seemed better on a gunslinger than a ranger to begin with

And again, "the build wasn't that strong to begin with" is a very bizarre way to justify a nerf.

Quote:

It also creates room for more viable builds in the first place.

Does it? Your suggestion is investing in a specific archetype, which narrows build options significantly more than taking a specific level 1 feat.

Duo is the best possible archetype for pure damage on a crossbow build. The "investment" sets you up with a huge list of incredible options. It also is better as soon as you take it, IMO, when you factor in the lesser cover, damage buff to your partner, and backstabber.

And it opens up more builds because the Arbalest is significantly more functional without any frat investment at all. Gravity Weapon on its own will likely be much better in the longrun than the old Ace was. The Duo dedication only came up because people shifted the goal post to spending two feats on crossbow ace AND gravity weapon. You can just skip both now and be left with me much more competitive weapon. Among other things, this means you can use an arbalest as a switch hitter option. With Avoid Notice virtually guaranteeing you're at least hidden at the start of combat, backstabber will definitely be relevant on your first shot and you can switch to melee once enemies close.

aobst128 wrote:

I see. That would probably put it in martial tier though.

and defeat the whole purpose. Of having a simple range weapon at reload 0.

I think reload 0 is pretty clearly not for simple weapons. Not even at a d4 damage die with a range of 20ft. It is a dividing line between the two categories of ranged weapons, with the closest concession being some variety of capacity weapon.

aobst128 wrote:

I see. That would probably put it in martial tier though.

and defeat the whole purpose. Of having a simple range weapon at reload 0.

Maybe if it was a d4