Eraden's page

I do apologize for making this inquiry if the answer has already been discussed earlier in this thread, but do spellcasters get the same potential access to equipment that can improve their accuracy with their spells, as martials do with their weapons, in PF2?

I think part of the problem here is that people who really liked the ranger class in previous editions, really liked the FLAVOR ("rangeryness") of the class and it seems to be difficult to get across to others the notion that the flavor is EXTREMELY important for those of us who gravitate to this class. If we just wanted big beat sticks we would have rolled up fighters. I would hope that there is some way to give some of that flavor back without boosting or nerfing any of the ranger's combat abilities. I've seen some suggestions here. They do look interesting. I also might have a closer look at those Warden spells that N N 959 pointed out. All in all, it would seem that folks are starting to come together to meet in the middle on this issue. This thread has been a fine thread to read. I like seeing folks discuss issues and find common ground. We need more of this in real life!

I like what N N 959 said about "Favored Terrain". He's right, it would make rangers feel more "rangery" to me.

Ummm, Alfa/Polaris, this is the first time I've ever had any discourse with N N 959. You must be thinking of someone else entirely. I've only ever begun posting on these forums since a few days ago. I've been incredibly busy with work for the last couple of years but now that I have finally retired after 33 years of service, I can get back to the game I love so much (started playing D&D back when there was only tiny little booklets and a smile on everyone's face).

Correct, N N 959. I am asking for something to give flavor to rangers without it being another combat oriented skill/feat. Right now, to me at least, rangers just don't feel "rangery" enough. Criteria for the change to the class, to me, would be for a list of features (NON COMBAT) offered as choices for aspiring rangers at level 1. The soon to be minted ranger picks one of those that hopefully gives the player that "rangery" feel about his/her character. These features should be somewhat modest in power so as to not turn rangers back into Swiss army knives again.

Yes, yes, I agree. That is why I offered a mea culpa. I really should have been more specific and clarified what I was talking about. I do apologize. Thanks for pointing that out by the way. Doing that has helped to remove some of the misunderstanding on my part. You were also quite polite about this and that is also appreciated. Nice to see folks in these forums who are willing to have friendly discourses.

Additionally, I would like to point out that I did indicate I was talking primarily about my own play style. Admittedly, I should have made reference to that again deeper into my post and indicated that I was referring strictly to the combat play styles that did not rely on animal companions or snares. To that I offer a mea culpa. When incorporating animal companions or snares into the mix of ranger tricks, obviously there will be a trade off in terms of pure combat feats. However, I still believe that those pure combat feats are much better, at least in terms of offering some versatility, than you appear to believe.

It appears that you think these feats are not good because they don't combine with each other. Their value is in making a ranger able to adapt to changing conditions in combat. If those feats could actually combine, it would likely make the ranger overpowered. Yes they are situational. But then, combat is like that. Situations arise that require the use of different tools. I consider these feats to be invaluable in allowing a ranger to adapt. For that reason, I do consider them to be incredibly important and probably needed IF you want to be versatile. They are NOT mandatory though. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. To be REALLY good at combat you DO have to be able to adapt to changing situations. You do NOT need to have these feats, though, if you simply want to be good at combat but not necessarily able to adapt as easily to changing conditions.

Rangers have a LOT of combat feats at low levels. Feats that while being more situational than "Twin Takedown" or "Hunted Shot", are STILL INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. For my own play style, I can not imagine being sufficiently effective without also picking up "Quick Draw" at level 2, "Twin Parry" at level 4, "Skirmish Strike at level 6 and "Blind Fight at level 8. If you want to be really good at melee or ranged you will HAVE to pick up most of the combat oriented feats found at these levels. That means not having any ability to have another niche you can work on. This just does not feel like what a ranger should be. I am not asking to be all things at all times. Especially not for pure combat (that is a fighter thing). I AM asking for a little bit of diversity for the ranger class that does NOT have to come at the expense of combat feats.

I would like to point out that while "Hunt Prey" is a really nice ability to have for rangers and does have a nice "rangery" feel to it, it just doesn't quite seem enough, at least for me, to make rangers feel that much different from other martials. I suppose my earlier suggestion of a general +1 boost to tracking is just more of the same but what I was really trying to convey was the need to give the rangers a niche that only they can be the best at filling while not having that niche be exclusive. In other words, a party shouldn't NEED a ranger to fulfill a specific task but perhaps that ranger would be the undisputed best at doing so.

For example, right now it is incredibly easy for another class to easily match or surpass rangers at tracking. Clerics could do it by sheer force of wisdom and rogues could do it by sheer force of skills. Now, granted there is a cost to these other classes to achieve that prowess but the cost is not that huge. A cleric only needs to put a single skill point into Survival in order for him/her to match a ranger, at least early on. A rogue could just keep dumping skill points into Survival without too much of a significant cost due to the overwhelming amount of skill points the rogue has. A ranger should have a bit more of an advantage than just "Hunt Prey" to give him a bit of an edge and claim title of "best tracker". Whether that is a simple +1 boost to Survival when tracking, or a baked in small boost (such as an extra 5 feet) to movement while tracking, it would help cement the feeling that the ranger is the best at tracking.

By the way, I do know that rangers have access to a feat at level 6 that gives them full movement while tracking. However, taking this feat comes at the cost of very important combat feats. A ranger should be able, in my opinion, be allowed to have this small boost in tracking from the level 1 choice I suggested AND be allowed to continue on with their chosen line of combat. Will they be as good at tracking as a ranger with "Swift Tracker"? No of course not. But then, that is the choice they must make at level 6. At least they will still be able to feel like their tracking ability is still special. They are after all, RANGERS.

Now apply this notion to other aspects of what once were rangers. Small bonuses to certain lines of abilities. Create a list of options. Allow the ranger to select only ONE of these small boosts at level 1. It's not much (at least I don't feel like it's much) that I am asking for, but it would, I think, make rangers feel more useful and more special in their wheelhouses while not turning rangers into the Swiss army knives they used to be.

Primarily, first and foremost, the ranger needs to have one more introductory feat or ability that isn't purely combat oriented, included as part of what a ranger is. That ability could be from the list I previously had mentioned, or it could be something else. Personally, I would be ecstatic if that ability was a small initial general boost to tracking that was not dependant on "Hunt Prey". Let's say, a +1 boost. Would it be used all the time? Probably not. It would be highly circumstantial. It WOULD however, make me feel like my ranger has something special that could occasionally be of help to my party and it would definitely feel, "rangery". For another person, what makes the class feel "rangery", might be something slightly different. I think if there was a list of options given at level 1 and the player was told to pick one of those options, and only one, as their "rangery" boost, I think that would probably be enough to give the class a little boost and more importantly, make rangers FEEL LIKE RANGERS.

Wow, it's fascinating to see how people completely misinterpret a post. I NEVER said that rangers should be EQUAL to fighters in terms of combat capability. What I DID say was that even if a ranger devotes ALL of his feats towards catching up to a fighter, he is still behind and on top of that also has additional restrictions such as lack of heavy armor use, etc. What I had proposed was that rangers should be allowed to have one free class utility feat from the list I presented so as to make these disadvantages less pronounced AND give them more of a unique flavor. I don't want rangers to be fighters. Let fighters be fighters. Rangers should be more versatile but at the cost of combat prowess. I would argue that right now, that the cost in combat prowess in order to have versatility is a bit too extreme.

It's actually human nature to want to be the "star" (being appreciated for some accomplishment) at least once in one's life/career. Most people are like that. It's really only the people who DON'T want to be the "star" and those who want to be the "star" ALL the time, that are the odd ones. I would agree that PF1 was amazingly unbalanced in its treatment of character classes. I think though, that PF2 may have fixed some imbalances and introduced others. Time will tell on that part. The play testing period probably helped to identify some of the problems. A massed accumulation of experiences of players over the next few years will definitely reveal any faults in the new system. My own concerns are with the ranger class. It seems a tad bit bland to me now that options have become so limited. However, my concerns about rangers are nothing compared to with my growing worry about wizards. They did need to be toned down. Have they been toned down TOO much?

I understand the need to trim down all of the features and abilities that rangers had in PF1, but I honestly think they went a bit too far in PF2. Rangers appear to have become effectively second class fighters that can nearly approach what fighters achieve IF they (rangers) devote nearly ALL of their feats towards "catching up". For this, they give up a number of features like use of heavy armor, high accuracy and such. It just doesn't feel right.

What I would like to propose is that you take features such as Tracking, Animal Companion, Traps, Spell Casting and Favored Terrain and have rangers select ONE bonus first level feat from ONE of these categories, at first level. This would go together with whatever combat style feat they would choose at first level. From there on, the class would function as per PF2 rules. If you want to boost that additional ability, it will come at the cost of improving your core combat functions. This way rangers would get some introductory level competency in another function for having given up functions that fighters get.

Thank you folks, for clarifying something for me. I purchased the Core Rulebook recently and has begun to experiment on creating characters. What got me stumped was the formula for Class DC. On page 29 there was a formula for Class DC but the variable "Proficiency Bonus" was not fully defined. Same thing for the listing for Class DC in the Appendix. I tried looking up "Proficiency Bonus" in the Appendix and only found "Proficiency". I sort of suspected that these two things were one and the same but I wasn't completely sure. You folks have helped clarify this for me and I am grateful for that. I just wish that those who wrote this manual would have included the COMPLETE definition and breakdown of Class DC in one location. It seems to be such an important number. It should have been fully defined and even given a delineating box to highlight it, when first described in the manual.