Player Core Preview: The Remastered Ranger

Tuesday, October 03, 2023

Hello all! Mike Sayre here to give you your next peek into the Remaster project with a look at the updated ranger, appearing in Pathfinder Player Core this November.

Pathfinder Iconic Ranger,  Harsk. A red headed dwarf holding an axe in each hand

The ranger is a wilderness warrior, a character who’s good with weapons, good with animals, good in the wilds, and who can sprinkle just a little bit of magic into their repertoire if they feel like it. By and large, this is one of the classes that most people consider to be solid and effective, good at its role both thematically and mechanically. While we’re not inclined to fix things that aren’t broken, the ranger being a generally solid and effective class pre-Remaster didn’t mean we didn’t have some notable opportunities to go in and spruce a few things up, improving the general progression and experience. I’ll be talking about a few of those things here.

The magical element of the ranger is often one of its more understated aspects, but it’s one people really care about. Originally, ranger focus spells, called warden spells, were added to the class after the fact in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and one of the downsides to this was that since they weren’t built into the class originally, the class didn’t have mechanisms in place to ensure that the ranger’s spellcasting proficiency improved as the character leveled up. In the Remaster, we’ve baked the spellcasting progression directly into the ranger’s core chassis, ensuring that class features like Ranger Expertise and Masterful Hunter naturally progress the ranger’s spellcasting proficiency all the way up to master. We also streamlined the feats that the ranger uses to accrue their warden spells and recategorized the spells into easily referenced groups; the 1st-level Initiate Warden feat allows you to choose from any of the initial warden spells (which are all of the ranger’s focus spells that start at 1st rank), and there are regularly paced feats all the way up to the 10th-level Peerless Warden feat that gives you access to the strongest ranger focus spells available, which are focus spells that all start at 5th rank.

Along with the general improvements to spellcasting, we also added some new feats to help make certain builds pop and shine a bit more brightly. Precision rangers who like combining warden spells with big shots from crossbows will likely appreciate the Warden’s Reload feat shown below, which allows them to reload as a free action once per round when they cast a warden spell; this combines nicely with staple spells like gravity weapon to increase your weapon damage or spells like ranger’s bramble that damage and immobilize your foes, making them easy targets for you to pick off from a safe distance!

Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Player Core Feat, Warden's Reload

Ranger snares are going to be the one thing not appearing in Player Core that were originally available to the class; snares were kind of the least satisfying of the options available to the ranger and the least used options, so we’ve pulled those out of the class. They’ll be appearing in Player Core 2 alongside the Snarecrafter archetype, with a much-needed facelift.

There were also a few places where we had feats that many people saw as being taxes that you had to pay to accomplish a specific flavor. For example, the Crossbow Ace feat that originally appeared in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook was written under the assumption that all crossbows were simple weapons, and so it provided a damage bonus that essentially converted those simple weapons into martial weapons whenever you took certain actions like using Hunt Prey or reloading. This ended up having a couple issues. On the one hand, the damage bonus was big enough that the feat felt like a “must have” if you were going to be using a crossbow, crowding out build versatility and other options. On the other hand, the feat was actively fighting with the ranger’s play loop; if you were Tracking your prey before combat began and you had your crossbow in hand loaded and ready for the fight, you didn’t have any way to get your damage bonus! Playing the character the way that everything in the game was telling you to play your character was leading to situations where you couldn’t use the abilities you were supposed to be using in the situations you were supposed to be using them.

To address those issues, we added a martial crossbow, the arbalest, so that you could expect a more reasonable damage output without needing to pay a feat tax. While we had the patient open on crossbows, we also adjusted them to make them their own weapon group, with a damage-oriented critical specialization that deals 1d8 persistent bleed damage plus additional bleed damage equal to the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls. If you preferred the bow critical specialization they had before, you can add that back onto your crossbow with the grievous rune, which makes it so that getting a critical hit with your crossbow when you have the critical specialization adds the bleed damage and also pins the target to an adjacent surface until they Interact to pull the bolt free.

Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Player Core: Arbalest weapon

With the basic damage outlay on crossbows addressed via the core weapon system, we were able to make reloading more fun and tactical with the feat space that was opened up. In addition to options like the Warden’s Reload feat I mentioned previously, we’ve also reworked Crossbow Ace and similar options to function more like the gunslinger’s various reload abilities, giving you additional things you can do to reinforce your playstyle with reload weapons while improving your ability to achieve the kind of cinematic tactical maneuvering that the class was always aiming to provide.

Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Player Core Feat, Crossbow Ace

So that’s everything I’ve got for you on the ranger! Thanks for tuning in and stay tuned for upcoming looks at the rest of what we’ve got coming to you in the Pathfinder Remaster.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Pathfinder Remaster Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
201 to 250 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Unicore wrote:
Dragonhearthx wrote:
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.

A 1+ handed D4 reload 0 weapon with 20-30 feet would fit reasonably well between the 2 repeaters imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This discussion is kinda off topic, but at this point I have to ask. Who would be the target audience for this weapon? Only casters have any incentive to look at simple ranged weapons and as a caster, I have a lot more useful things to occupy both my hands with.


Bomber Alchemists always need a backup weapon, preferably ranged, from around L1 to at least L3 or 4. Slings are decent; I used a free Ancestry feat to go Halfling Sling Staff on my most recent Bomber but a regular sling was just fine on my first (PFS) one.


Karmagator wrote:
This discussion is kinda off topic, but at this point I have to ask. Who would be the target audience for this weapon? Only casters have any incentive to look at simple ranged weapons and as a caster, I have a lot more useful things to occupy both my hands with.

Alchemists yeah. Possibly weapon inventors. The long air repeater is kinda in that space where it's not really good for anyone too.

Liberty's Edge

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?

Volley, and it is d8 rather than d10, and it is 4 times more expensive too.

Even its ammunition is 10 times more expensive.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
The Raven Black 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?

Volley, and it is d8 rather than d10, and it is 4 times more expensive too.

Even its ammunition is 10 times more expensive.

More expensive than what? I seem to have lost track of what we're talking about here. The arbalest?

Liberty's Edge

Ed Reppert wrote:
The Raven Black 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?

Volley, and it is d8 rather than d10, and it is 4 times more expensive too.

Even its ammunition is 10 times more expensive.

More expensive than what? I seem to have lost track of what we're talking about here. The arbalest?

My comment quoted above was about a post mentioning the Halfling Sling Staff.


The composite bows are for some reason a lot more expensive than most other ranged weapons which unfortunately, seems to be sticking around from this threads reveal.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

As for pricing, Pathfinder's idea of an "economy" is kind of ludicrous in any case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thankfully it's not "Werewolf of Wall Street" the game, and I can accept lesser verisimilitude for a well working item system.


Starting out at level 1, it's just annoying to need to track down or purchase a new weapon so soon after character creation when you scrounge up the gold. Might as well always start with a gakgung which is the best of both worlds for bows and affordable.


even with 3 free reload per fight and gunslinger type reload feat still not sure how competitive reload weapon will be

repeating weapon still seems far better

Sovereign Court

The price of the weapon doesn't seem that important to me, since you get the weapon for free when you buy the +1 rune. So it can at most be a level 1 problem.

Scarab Sages

I’m probably missing something, but doesn’t the propulsive trait of composite bows make up for the lower die? Then they still have Deadly and Reload 0 to race ahead. Why would anyone want an Arbalest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because crossbows are way cooler than bows, duh.


Crossbows kind of suck. Best ranged weapon for a ranger is a bow. I had one with a horned bow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one would have appreciated something to make hunt prey a bit less tedious in fights with several enemies by having it do something else or giving more feats that improve it like monster hunter. Not exactly the greatest fan of spells and crossbows so I feel a bit of a letdown but whatever, ranger still plenty cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

This is cool and all, but there's still no justification for why Crossbows are so dramatically worse than Bows. How about Fatal or something to make that jump from Reload 0 to Reload 2 less horrendous; if it's going to be a one-attack weapon it should really land.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Farce wrote:
This is cool and all, but there's still no justification for why Crossbows are so dramatically worse than Bows. How about Fatal or something to make that jump from Reload 0 to Reload 2 less horrendous; if it's going to be a one-attack weapon it should really land.

It's reload 1, not 2. Not that bows aren't still massively better, but still.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:
Farce wrote:
This is cool and all, but there's still no justification for why Crossbows are so dramatically worse than Bows. How about Fatal or something to make that jump from Reload 0 to Reload 2 less horrendous; if it's going to be a one-attack weapon it should really land.
It's reload 1, not 2. Not that bows aren't still massively better, but still.

Heavy Crossbow is still Reload 2 and has no beneficial traits at all :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heavy crossbow should be avoided by anyone who isn't a simple weapon class.


aobst128 wrote:
Heavy crossbow should be avoided by anyone who isn't a simple weapon class.

And by everyone else as well, because an effectively 1 use per fight weapon isn't worth the money you spend on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Farce wrote:
This is cool and all, but there's still no justification for why Crossbows are so dramatically worse than Bows. How about Fatal or something to make that jump from Reload 0 to Reload 2 less horrendous; if it's going to be a one-attack weapon it should really land.

Reload one, but agreed.

Bows get propulsive and deadly and a resonable critical effect. Volley is annoying but can be worked around.
Crossbows do get a large die size and a couple of damage buffs which is something. But it looks like they are going to loose the Bow critical for a Bleed critical.
When I boil it down the crosswbow is 1 die size ahead for the reload action. I'd rather have the action.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fair comparison would be Composite Shortbow to Arbalest (ie, no Volley trait to account for).

So, 1D6 Deadly 1D10, Range 60ft, Reload 0,
1+ hand for 14gp vs 1D10, Range 110ft, Reload 1, 2 hands and Backstabber for 12gp.

So, almost double range, 2 die size and sometimes a small bonus to damage vs the reload action and requiring 2 hands.

Pretty balanced I feel.

Liberty's Edge

Farce wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Farce wrote:
This is cool and all, but there's still no justification for why Crossbows are so dramatically worse than Bows. How about Fatal or something to make that jump from Reload 0 to Reload 2 less horrendous; if it's going to be a one-attack weapon it should really land.
It's reload 1, not 2. Not that bows aren't still massively better, but still.
Heavy Crossbow is still Reload 2 and has no beneficial traits at all :/

It is also a Simple weapon, but yes it's bad. Are there feats around that allow reducing its Reload ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

The fair comparison would be Composite Shortbow to Arbalest (ie, no Volley trait to account for).

So, 1D6 Deadly 1D10, Range 60ft, Reload 0,
1+ hand for 14gp vs 1D10, Range 110ft, Reload 1, 2 hands and Backstabber for 12gp.

So, almost double range, 2 die size and sometimes a small bonus to damage vs the reload action and requiring 2 hands.

Pretty balanced I feel.

The difference between 1+ hands and 2 hands as a ranged character is functionally irrelevant. The range upgrade is neat on paper, but doesn't matter to the Ranger either. They shoot into the second range increment without penalty. Not that 60ft aren't enough for pretty much every fight you'll ever have even without playing a ranger.

So the realistic comparison is 1d6 deadly d10 plus propulsive with reload 0 vs 1d10 backtstabber with reload 1. And given that relaod 0 weapons just pump out twice the shots or more for the same amount of actions, there is essentially no situation where the arbalest has a leg up.

The Raven Black wrote:
It is also a Simple weapon, but yes it's bad. Are there feats around that allow reducing its Reload ?

Unfortunately not.

Liberty's Edge

Karmagator wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The fair comparison would be Composite Shortbow to Arbalest (ie, no Volley trait to account for).

So, 1D6 Deadly 1D10, Range 60ft, Reload 0,
1+ hand for 14gp vs 1D10, Range 110ft, Reload 1, 2 hands and Backstabber for 12gp.

So, almost double range, 2 die size and sometimes a small bonus to damage vs the reload action and requiring 2 hands.

Pretty balanced I feel.

The difference between 1+ hands and 2 hands as a ranged character is functionally irrelevant. The range upgrade is neat on paper, but doesn't matter to the Ranger either. They shoot into the second range increment without penalty. Not that 60ft aren't enough for pretty much every fight you'll ever have even without playing a ranger.

So the realistic comparison is 1d6 deadly d10 plus propulsive with reload 0 vs 1d10 backtstabber with reload 1. And given that relaod 0 weapons just pump out twice the shots or more for the same amount of actions, there is essentially no situation where the arbalest has a leg up.

The Raven Black wrote:
It is also a Simple weapon, but yes it's bad. Are there feats around that allow reducing its Reload ?
Unfortunately not.

Missed that the Arbalest is not Propulsive.

Second Strike with a Composite Shortbow on a round is -5. Far from a sure hit.

I do not master the damage comparison tool, so I cannot assess if the First Strike, Second Strike with the Composite Shortbow is better or worse than the One Strike with the Arbalest for a STR10 character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The heavy crossbow is a fine fire and forget option for a low level caster who might only make one weapon attack in 3 rounds anyway, needing to move around and cast spells, which seems like the design space it is meant to occupy. Probably not worth investing runes in until you are finding them in droves, especially as they are a great choice for potency Crystals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Second Strike with a Composite Shortbow on a round is -5. Far from a sure hit.

I do not master the damage comparison tool, so I cannot assess if the First Strike, Second Strike with the Composite Shortbow is better or worse than the One Strike with the Arbalest for a STR10 character.

It's -3 (or effectively -3 compared to martial standard) for both the Flurry Ranger and Fighter. And trust me, you don't really need a damage comparison tool.

The damage difference between a hit from a shortbow and an arbalest is an average 2 per damage die in favour of the latter. This, generally speaking, gets reduced to about 1 due to the mix of propulsive and deadly d10, which gets somewhat compensated for by backstabber if you have teammates that can reliably apply off-guard. Regardless, even just one hit from your MAP shots makes up for that difference several times, which gets amplified as you rise in level.

Now an arbalest gets an absolute maximum of 1.5 shots per round (counted over two rounds). Or more like 1 in case of the Ranger. A bow user can easily get 3 shots per round or 2 on a bad turn. Sure, many of the MAP shots aren't going to hit. But just one hit will make up for several rounds of damage difference and you are going to hit a lot more than 1.

I think you can see the problem?

Liberty's Edge

Karmagator wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Second Strike with a Composite Shortbow on a round is -5. Far from a sure hit.

I do not master the damage comparison tool, so I cannot assess if the First Strike, Second Strike with the Composite Shortbow is better or worse than the One Strike with the Arbalest for a STR10 character.

It's -3 (or effectively -3 compared to martial standard) for both the Flurry Ranger and Fighter. And trust me, you don't really need a damage comparison tool.

The damage difference between a hit from a shortbow and an arbalest is an average 2 per damage die in favour of the latter. This, generally speaking, gets reduced to about 1 due to the mix of propulsive and deadly d10, which gets somewhat compensated for by backstabber if you have teammates that can reliably apply off-guard. Regardless, even just one hit from your MAP shots makes up for that difference several times, which gets amplified as you rise in level.

Now an arbalest gets an absolute maximum of 1.5 shots per round (counted over two rounds). Or more like 1 in case of the Ranger. A bow user can easily get 3 shots per round or 2 on a bad turn. Sure, many of the MAP shots aren't going to hit. But just one hit will make up for several rounds of damage difference and you are going to hit a lot more than 1.

I think you can see the problem?

I think your comparison is off for the Fighter (still -5 compared to their first attack). Now the Flurry Ranger, ie one subclass of one class, might be much better served with a Composite Shortbow. I have no problem with this really.

I have the nagging feeling that 1 attack from the Arbalest vs 2 attacks with the Composite Shortbow will be better for a STR 10 non-Flurry Ranger character whereas such a character but with higher STR will get better results with the Composite Shortbow. But only a real comparison with an appropriate tool can give us the results.

And I honestly believe the third action is almost always better spent not Striking whatever the weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The heavy crossbow is a fine fire and forget option for a low level caster who might only make one weapon attack in 3 rounds anyway, needing to move around and cast spells, which seems like the design space it is meant to occupy. Probably not worth investing runes in until you are finding them in droves, especially as they are a great choice for potency Crystals.

It's not so great even for them... As a 2 handed weapon it's an action to draw/wield it as they can't wield in and cast spells. This means it's the same actions to use it as it is to cast a cantrip meaning it is truly only useful to wield it at the start of combat, fire it with your first action, then drop it... Color me less than impressed.

IMO, I'd rather use an Air Repeater: it's only a d4 but it's one handed [meaning I can cast spells while wielding it] and it's Repeating [meaning I could cast a save cantrip/spell and fire it every round I don't move] and it's 1 bulk and 9L lower in weight.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The heavy crossbow is a fine fire and forget option for a low level caster who might only make one weapon attack in 3 rounds anyway, needing to move around and cast spells, which seems like the design space it is meant to occupy. Probably not worth investing runes in until you are finding them in droves, especially as they are a great choice for potency Crystals.
It's not so great even for them... As a 2 handed weapon it's an action to draw/wield it as they can't wield in and cast spells. This means it's the same actions to use it as it is to cast a cantrip meaning it is truly only useful to wield it at the start of combat, fire it with your first action, then drop it... Color me less than impressed.

1d10 for one action is not that bad. It's like a Focus Spell but as a weapon. Though you have to pay to heighten its damage. And it does not heighten often.


The Raven Black wrote:
It's like a Focus Spell but as a weapon. Though you have to pay to heighten its damage. And it does not heighten often.

It's like a focus spell with a -1 to hit... [it doesn't use your casting stat] For a fire and forget weapon, might as well go all the way and buy a Backpack Ballista...

Paizo Employee Design Manager

12 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
As a 2 handed weapon [...] they can't wield in and cast spells.

That's not a rule in PF2.

CRB wrote:


A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the nagging feeling that 1 attack from the Arbalest vs 2 attacks with the Composite Shortbow will be better for a STR 10 non-Flurry Ranger character whereas such a character but with higher STR will get better results with the Composite Shortbow. But only a real comparison with an appropriate tool can give us the results.

Attacking twice with a bow pretty much always outdamages the arbalest even with precision (which means you can just take hunted shot and have a lot more freedom with your actions), based on what I put in my tool, even when the target is flatfooted. Likely from a combination of missing being really bad with the crossbow (as if the bows miss, you can still get the precision damage boost on the next attack) and how even with precision stuff like energy damage runes mean that attacking more is still a good chunk of damage later on.


You know, while hasted, warden's reload is sad again since bows gain their advantage back. Pretty common at that level with heightened haste or a speed rune.


Michael Sayre wrote:
graystone wrote:
As a 2 handed weapon [...] they can't wield in and cast spells.

That's not a rule in PF2.

CRB wrote:


A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.

Yes it is...

Material
Source Core Rulebook pg. 303
A material component is a bit of physical matter consumed in the casting of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to have a free hand to retrieve and manipulate a material component.

Focus
Source Core Rulebook pg. 303
A focus is an object that funnels the magical energy of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Most spells don't have material or focus components, its mostly just 3 action spells.


graystone wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
graystone wrote:
As a 2 handed weapon [...] they can't wield in and cast spells.

That's not a rule in PF2.

CRB wrote:


A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.

Yes it is...

Material
Source Core Rulebook pg. 303
A material component is a bit of physical matter consumed in the casting of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to have a free hand to retrieve and manipulate a material component.

Focus
Source Core Rulebook pg. 303
A focus is an object that funnels the magical energy of the spell. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand.

Yeah, material components are almost always for 3 action spells and not that common.


If you'd like to be a conjurer with a lot of summon spells, crossbows aren't for you.


MEATSHED wrote:
Focus and material components are both extremely rare.

243 spells list material so it's not "extremely rare". Arcane has 616, divine 367, occult 502 and primal 475.*

*numbers are a quick nethys search so may not be 100 percent correct

aobst128 wrote:
Yeah, material components are almost always for 3 action spells and not that common.

Things like mud pit, Obscuring Mist, Solid Fog, Blink, Walls, Disappearance, Invisibility, Silence, Scintillating Pattern, Black Tentacles, Ice Storm and Web are on that list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
Focus and material components are both extremely rare.

243 spells list material so it's not "extremely rare". Arcane has 616, divine 367, occult 502 and primal 475.*

*numbers are a quick nethys search so may not be 100 percent correct

aobst128 wrote:
Yeah, material components are almost always for 3 action spells and not that common.
Things like mud pit, Obscuring Mist, Solid Fog, Blink, Walls, Disappearance, Invisibility, Silence, Scintillating Pattern, Black Tentacles, Ice Storm and Web are on that list.

Well, the thing that was contested was that you claimed that you can't cast with your hands occupied which is false. You can't cast spells with material components. Much different story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And if you really need to cast a material spell, you can always drop a hand


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that the “components” question of casting is something we need to wait a month before trying to answer. The fact a current developer is suggesting the hand question isn’t a big deal anymore seems like a good sign to me.

Edit: my read of the spells in rage of elements is that spells that require materials are going to explicitly say so in the description of the spell, not in a vague tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Well, the thing that was contested was that you claimed that you can't cast with your hands occupied which is false. You can't cast spells with material components. Much different story.

*shrug* I thought it common knowledge that some spells required a free hand and if it was a surprise to some, it's been since clarified. As/is, my statement is neither true or false but one that needed further clarification: you can't say you can cast spells without a free hand either without furher context.

aobst128 wrote:
And if you really need to cast a material spell, you can always drop a hand

That really negates its only usefulness in being a single action attack. Once it hits 2 attacks, you're competing with spells that have better to hit and comparable damage.

Unicore wrote:
The fact a current developer is suggesting the hand question isn’t a big deal anymore seems like a good sign to me.

I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusion: it was a response with current rules and nothing seemed to indicate anything about the new rules set. It would be great if it does see some clean up.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Well, the thing that was contested was that you claimed that you can't cast with your hands occupied which is false. You can't cast spells with material components. Much different story.

*shrug* I thought it common knowledge that some spells required a free hand and if it was a surprise to some, it's been since clarified. As/is, my statement is neither true or false but one that needed further clarification: you can't say you can cast spells without a free hand either without furher context.

aobst128 wrote:
And if you really need to cast a material spell, you can always drop a hand

That really negates its only usefulness in being a single action attack. Once it hits 2 attacks, you're competing with spells that have better to hit and comparable damage.

Unicore wrote:
The fact a current developer is suggesting the hand question isn’t a big deal anymore seems like a good sign to me.
I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusion: it was a response with current rules and nothing seemed to indicate anything about the new rules set. It would be great if it does see some clean up.

Actually the wording of the playtest Animist suggests that material components are not a thing anymore : they are not mentioned and neither is an alternative for them.

Liberty's Edge

MEATSHED wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the nagging feeling that 1 attack from the Arbalest vs 2 attacks with the Composite Shortbow will be better for a STR 10 non-Flurry Ranger character whereas such a character but with higher STR will get better results with the Composite Shortbow. But only a real comparison with an appropriate tool can give us the results.

Attacking twice with a bow pretty much always outdamages the arbalest even with precision (which means you can just take hunted shot and have a lot more freedom with your actions), based on what I put in my tool, even when the target is flatfooted. Likely from a combination of missing being really bad with the crossbow (as if the bows miss, you can still get the precision damage boost on the next attack) and how even with precision stuff like energy damage runes mean that attacking more is still a good chunk of damage later on.

Thank you for this. I am a bit disappointed as I hoped the Arbalest would be better in a least a few cases.


graystone wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Well, the thing that was contested was that you claimed that you can't cast with your hands occupied which is false. You can't cast spells with material components. Much different story.

*shrug* I thought it common knowledge that some spells required a free hand and if it was a surprise to some, it's been since clarified. As/is, my statement is neither true or false but one that needed further clarification: you can't say you can cast spells without a free hand either without furher context.

aobst128 wrote:
And if you really need to cast a material spell, you can always drop a hand

That really negates its only usefulness in being a single action attack. Once it hits 2 attacks, you're competing with spells that have better to hit and comparable damage.

Unicore wrote:
The fact a current developer is suggesting the hand question isn’t a big deal anymore seems like a good sign to me.
I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusion: it was a response with current rules and nothing seemed to indicate anything about the new rules set. It would be great if it does see some clean up.

Not sure what you mean by negating its usefulness. If we're talking about the heavy crossbow, it's likely it would be empty already. Your original assumption that it's disabling to casters is still wrong.


Now, if we're talking about scrolls, staves, and wands, that's a different story but a caster can manage with a 2 handed weapon fine most of the time.

Liberty's Edge

I think the whole oof moment of forgetting that Material Components and Focuses existing is beside the point anyhow since the topic of discussion is the Ranger which has precisely zero Focus Spells that have a Material Component unless that is changing with the Remaster.

201 to 250 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Player Core Preview: The Remastered Ranger All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.