Gorignak227's page

If it comes up enough to be a real issue in your games, you could use a rule similar to Star Saga (probably used other places too) where you can't move diagonally if the two square you go "between" are both blocked.

That's a decent rule.

I've always thought a hostile creatures space should act like a hard corner anyways and disallow diagonal movement.

SuperBidi wrote:

As a side note, if your player is ok to drop the shield, he can go with 2 thrown weapons and use Twin Takedown instead, which works for both melee and ranged attacks.

I would strongly recommend consulting your GM before trying this. Twin Takedown specifically requires two melee weapons and the Thrown trait turns a weapon into a ranged weapon when used. I personally wouldn't allow it.

Dual Thrower helps with this

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1951

Edit: Nm, doesn't help with Twin Takedown specifically, bummer

Here how the Flexible Caster works from the spoilers.

At odd lvls you gain your slots as normal, but at even lvls you don't gain a spell slot, so essentially -1 spell slot per spell lvl.

I was excited for this, but that is a tough pill to swallow for the 3 spells/level casters. I was hoping it was just going to cut down on the # of spells you were able to prepare rather than the # of spell slots. Hell i'd pay a feat just to have the option to cast spontaneously rather than vancian.

The play report is that a level 2 fighter with an 18 strength wielding a two-handed weapon is going to kill a goblin they hit most of the time with a single hit, and that on their first attack they're usually going to hit.

Hitting the goblins usually isn't the issue (especially for a fighter), the issue is usually the goblins are going to have quite a few shots hitting the party and there's some huge swinginess to the encounters based on a few high rolls for initiative and attacks (and how tactical the GM wants to play them).

For my first encounter with goblins in PF2 we were exploring a cave section.

Our rogue rounds the corner. Everyone roll initiative.

Quite a few of the goblins go first (they were stealthing with +5), 3 goblins shoot their shortbows at the rogue (the only one visible). One of the hits is a crit, he goes down.

The rest of the battle is now our cleric healing up a person/s, our melee trying to close with the goblins, getting peppered, and then going down. The healed person would spend nearly all their turn getting their weapons, getting up, and trying to close with the goblins again. Eventually it turned into a TPK.

The battle could have gone much differently if we went first, just didn't have quite so many crits against us, or just played safer as adventurers. But there are just a lot of chances for things to go bad.

TBH I actually think the goblin warriors are scarier than the commandos. They're two levels lower, so you can fit two warriors in an encounter for every commando, but they're just as accurate, and deadly d10 is pretty brutal at level 1 when HP values are so small.

It really doesn't take much for them to just start dropping characters. Tactics and coordination are essential in PF2 and make a huge difference in how easy combats are, but there's only so much you can do when you're dropped to dying in the first round of combat because someone rolled a little bit high.

Ya, agree on the goblin warriors. I was very surprised that the default first level enemies are given shortbows.

It is a huge culture shock for PF1 players already expecting to just run up and start slaughtering "a bunch of weak goblins". The goblin warriors start unleashing 3 attacks (2 that can hit you much easier than in PF1) AND deal out a bunch of extra damage on a crit. Definitely not a training wheels encounter to transition new players into the system.

For new players of PF2 coming from 5ed i think you should just have the PCs boosted a level, maybe even 2 until they figure everything out.

The culture shock for new players feeling like wimps in PF2 until they figure out all the tricks is kind of hard for a lot of player types.

You're just undervaluing the lack of 1 action for the boss. It's steep. That's basically one less critical hit per round (they're just that strong. It sucks) or simply limiting them to one attack per round if they have to move.

That will be 2 actions against 12 actions of a 4 PC party. Depending on the creature, it can mess up their whole routine.

The fact that the 3rd attack is still deadly on a boss is a good point and of course the fact that bosses are already losing the action economy vs the PCs as well.

Hmm, I wonder how a debuff like slow stacks up vs buffs and which effect you should do first in combat (if you weren't able to pre-buff)?

Casting greater invis or even blur on your teammates is pretty powerful without the failure chance but might have to hit 2 teammates if another buffer isn't available vs a decent chance of at least slowing the boss on the first round (with a simple success) and possibly denying it an action on a round it has to move.

Cast slow, you win. If you fail, do it again, until win.

Slow isn't auto-win on its own right?

Depriving a boss of 1 action is nice but doesn't inconvenience most monsters that much (their lowest attack for most) unless the party also denies the boss actions right?

Or am i missing some common tactics?

graystone wrote:

PLEASE point out where that is explicitly written out in the core rules. I'd like to see a page number and quote for that.

It's more a "the GM becomes an unreliable narrator if you don't give the players at least a vague indication" than a thing the authors of the game thought "we'd better spell it out explicitly, or people won't realize" kind of thing.

Similar to how many GMs have their own way of running knowledge checks i've seen a pretty broad spectrum of how most GMs run spell effect feedback

Personally I like to give lots of feedback/cues/hints for the player about spell effects for many of the reasons noble stated and like it to flow like i'm reading a fantasy novel, but i'm definitely in the minority around here.

...In a system where a +2 bonus is a Big Deal, it can be hard fine tuning things, and creating options that you want to be good but not awesome at doing a thing. As an example, look at the issues with the playtest magus and summoner. They're really hard to get right, because there's not much room in between a proper martial and a caster to begin with.

Agree.

I almost wish there was an additional proficiency step (scaled for balance) or just a magical +2 rather than the 1/few classes receiving Legendary in attacks/defense to accommodate the hybrid class situation better.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

Sorry, I replied a little early before i noticed that the spell actually requires a separate attack roll, sorry to side track the discussion.

There's a minor bonus of being able to make spell attacks with the addition of your item bonus.

In exchange for 3 slots a level, Druids get access to absolutely stellar Focus Spells.

Wild Shape is a full blown actual spell slot with extra perks, Tempest Surge is by far the best damage focus spell and almost as good as a real spell, and Goodberry is infinite downtime healing access... and Druids can pick up more than one of these each.

This gives Druids a level of spellcasting "endurance" or stamina other spellcasters lack, while they still retain nova/burst spellcasting like other classes.

Druid's do have some nice focus spells, but i do wonder if this is actually a designer balance nudge.

I would think PF2's design philosophy would try to balance all focus spells against each other.
Are future wizard and sorcerer focus spells always going to be weaker than tempest surge because of wizard's better spellcasting chassis?

There is a sturdy shield that can take a beating. It is called sturdy shield.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=327

Sturdy shields are metal

The best gauge for playability of classes would probably be a survey on how much people play certain classes but one of those that can actually get a random sample of PF2e players is not easy. A PFS class survey might not be a bad idea to get a feel for the dynamic right now but even then that's going to be the most dedicated and experienced group of players.

Yes, it would be nice to see a little more wide ranging data such as pfs #s with a breakdown of PCs by classes played, lvls, deaths, etc.

One thing that I see from players that I wish I had more wide ranging data for is when players give up on a class. In my personally small dataset I've seen multiple players be excited to play warpriests and alchemists but then be unhappy with them and switch to something else (usually fighter and sometimes cloistered for warpriest and anything for alchemist).

Additionally, it would also be interesting to see if players switch back to classes (like casters) after they know the system better.

These are awesome.
Great for a new player to see how everything interacts.

However, as a separate matter, High AC is better for calculations like this than Moderate AC is for all the reasons I've gone into, making not using it a (relatively minor) error in methodology if your intent is to actually reflect how PCs will do against monsters in play.

Just for my knowledge, it sounds like High AC is the median/most common for monsters but is it also the average value when including the low AC monsters?

And does anyone have a link to a spreadsheet where those values are visible?

Deriven Firelion wrote:

...multiple attacks is the standard for martials.

In some campaigns.

Haha, "in some campaigns". Man i've been really taking it for granted to actually attack 2 (or even 3 or 4) times as a martial.

For the most part i think your style of discussion isn't too bad on the forums noble, but some of these responses feel like sometimes you argue for the sake of arguing and this tends to frustrate some people. Most people don't get too bugged by it but it would feel a little better if you try to see their side a bit better.

You still seem to be missing the "dice making you feel bad is a player trait, not a class trait" aspect of the discussion though.

I think he has already acknowledged that part of the discussion even though he has not explicitly specified it. But i think you might not be acknowledging his point that spellcasters usually have less chances to do something fun since they are casting a 2 action spell like Deriven pointed out.

Now, i think after PC spellcasters are more accustomed to PF2 and realize a little more how some of these 4 failure effects are still very important their opinions will change but a lot of players still struggle with doing their usual 1 spell and seeing the bad guys save against it.

Ya, i agree CON is not as important as it was in 1st ed. but do wonder myself about...

Is DEX more important than CON as a save stat? How often do spells and monster abilities target DEX vs CON?

Which classes don't have enough "room" for CON? I know Warpriests are pretty strapped for stats, any other classes that can't afford to boost CON?

Honestly I’m confused by this whole needing to go into adopted ancestry to reach back for 1st level feats. I can’t find anywhere it says you cannot train in a feat from a previous level...?

You can take a lower leveled feat later.

Hunt Prey as a standalone is not very exciting, but it does enable your Hunter's Edge. Viewed as half of a two-action activity, it is like a Power Attack or Double Slice, only better if your target survives for a second round. The poor fighter has to keep using two actions for those neat things when the ranger only has to spend one for a bonus precision die or twin takedown.

Yes, agree on the mechanical benefits, but wish they chose a different way of enabling hunter's edge that felt better in play.

All in all i think i prefer the PF1 version of the ranger but the PF2 ranger isn't too bad.
But I do have a few thoughts.

Snares and Hunter's Edge are both great additions to the PF2 ranger

Focus Spells are cool but wish more of them had a little broader flexibility so they compared more favorably to just multiclassing druid spellcasting.

Hunt Prey feels a little bad to use
I guess its kind of supposed to feel bad to use but its weird getting bummed at your fellow party members for always killing your hunted guy and to shy away from focusing guys down with the rest of the party. Additionally its action penalty is at odds on a class which has pets, dual wielding, and actually being able to use their 3rd action for an attack via flurry. Of course smart players will say, "no you shouldn't play a dark elf with a panther friend and two swords because you're going to be too action hungry", but isn't that weird that your main feature goes against a lot of your other class features rather than synergizing? Plus after playing a flurry ranger next to a fighter you have some class envy that they don't have to do anything special and get fighters +2/-2/-6 vs your Flurry 0/-2/-4.

I do like the benefit for ranged weapons negating ranged increment penalties but wish there were some benefits of the base action on a melee build. So hunt prey feels like a game designer trick to give a ranger something cool but with a drawback that you don't quite see until you start playing with it. Ideally if you were to multiclass into ranger the Hunt Prey feature should be something they were excited to get. I almost think hunt prey should have had the monster hunter effect in the base package.

Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain
I used to like these features from PF1 but not too fond of them in PF2.
Like the Favored Terrain upgrade ideas but not quite good enough to usually pick.

Because lots of players like having deities in a fantasy setting.

Heh, most players i know would kick out their deities stained glass window for any character option they thought was advantageous.

The target becomes immune to *your* battle medicine, friendo. Everyone can have it, and everyone can use it on everybody, once per day, per person. Four person party? Each person can be Battle Medicined 4 times per day, and if you end up with Godless Healing->Mortal Healing, it gets even more insane.

Wow, didn't know about the Mortal Healing feat. Man, don't know why more people aren't using this as a standard 3rd action.

Oracle doesn't have any mystery specific feats out of the gate?

Darn, think those feats would have rounded out the mysteries a lot better to make each oracle feel different besides the level 1 mystery choice.

Do you guys tell the level of a magical effect for dispel or counteracting purposes?

I don't agree with this. Monsters for the most part are designed with common sense. big strong things have good fort saves, sleek things have good reflex saves.

I don't think as a blaster you need to metagame, just using common sense we would ascribe to any fantasy character will be enough the vast majority of the time.

You don't need to know the name of the monster, but your GM does need to give a good description of monster.

when im playing my druid, I always ask for information my druid would be looking for, how does the monster move, how is it built, does it move like a cat or is it more lumbering, what size is it, what color, does the monster look like any other common type of monster, and then i make an educated guess.

Asking a little bit about the description like that is a style of play i like from a player, i think its more fun myself, but a lot of the GMs that i have played with around here would instantly get the old beady eyes and probably wouldn't tell you much and might throw down the "metagamer!" gauntlet and feel like you are fishing for information you shouldn't have. (I usually see people play like its a board game and just rules vs seeing it like a fantasy novel).

And now that i just read the Battle Assessment feat i think those same GMs (who probably are a little adversarial) would probably use that feat and the other feats that use Recall Knowledge as ammunition that your common sense assessment is actually/should be using the feat/skill instead.

I was a fairly lenient GM in pfs 1st ed who often got eye rolls from some of the other GMs when i actually gave out relevant info on knowledge checks rather than some sort of blind attribute pick 'em game (which only worked for the experienced meta gamer players and left the new players always thinking picking up a knowledge skill wasn't helpful). I have a feeling i'll be getting eye rolls in this edition as well.

Unfortunately, other than cheating by metagaming there is no truly reliable way of knowing what a monsters worst save is.

Oh you can often guess. But what information you get on knowledge checks is very, very undefined and up to the GM.

Just to double check is @Pauljathome correct on this?

Everyone seems to be implying that knowing and being able to target the worst save is easy (on a recall knowledge?) and usually part of the base calculations so to speak.

This is, as you've assumed, a very often brought up topic. Casters in second edition are much more of a support class than they used to be. If adding onto the fighters chance to hit or healing or controlling the flow of battle isn't something the players enjoy, they are a little out of luck.

Definitely agree on this. Casters are doing a pretty good job of making the party more effective in this edition but oftentimes they aren't doing things that are that fun for themselves.

As others have said sometimes they'll do an amazing job and buff the party and then debuff the enemy and then...the martials are even more amazing and can hit on their 2nd and possibly 3rd attacks even and the party crushes the bad guy but the caster feels like pure support and didn't get to do his own fun thing. It kind of makes the party balance feel worse.

I've never had an encounter last longer than 6 rounds, 10 rounds is a ridiculous length to call short.

I haven't had tons of play experience but with a non-powergamer party i would say the easy encounters were around 4 rounds, normal 7, and for harder encounters they would routinely go past 10 rounds since once a pc drops there's a lot of back and forth now trying to save your friend or the pc just getting back into combat and everyone's damage output tends to drop.

So far as I am aware, damage is not Secret and is therefore public information unless your DM houserules otherwise.

Oh, didn't know things were visible by default now.

How does the lack of a Secret trait on certain types of rolls interact with the GM fudging dice to try to save players and the like?

I guess my question would be, have you been able to see the giant instinct in play? Did he/she hold up well enough? Obviously its easy enough to ruminate over "could be's" and "maybes" on paper, but a different thing altogether when actually playing it. (Honest question by the way, not trying to be sarcastic/argumentative).

From my play experience...

The drawbacks to reflex saves and AC is pretty noticeable. You will be crit quite a bit.

The main thing i was excited for was getting AoOs with reach and using Whirlwind attack to attack a bunch of people. In practice:

Reach and AoOs
I wasn't able to use Titan's stature that often because of cramped spaces (probably got to use it around 40% of the time). I got some AoOs but if i wasn't able to get huge the monsters often had comparable reach even when i was using a reach weapon. All in all i felt that 2 feats was not fetching me enough benefit beyond just using an enlarge potion which provides reach AND a damage bonus. In fact you could just be a giant instinct barb for the extra rage damage but use the enlarge potions to save yourself some feats and do more damage.

Whirlwind Strike
In practice, I rarely got much good use out of Whirlwind strike. By the time you get it most of the monsters are large size or more and hard to pack in a lot of enemies and the 3 action requirement makes it hard to line up properly. If you regularly get access to haste it would make it a little better to use.

Your 3rd Attack
The barbarian list is a little light on things to do for your 3rd attack so plan accordingly.

Right off the bat no feats needed, PF2 system allows you to attack-move-move and keep out of the reach of a melee attack by an enemy that is slower than you. They can spend all their 3 actions to get in your face, but by default, they can't attack you.

That was impossible in PF1, where you could move your 30 ft away from the opponent and shoot, but they, in turn, could just charge you and close the distance even if their speed was as slow as 15 feet.

I like the strategy aspect for a PC to use this tactic and have more variety in movement options but charge no longer being available to all melee characters (or a feat tax for some) is a thing i miss from PF1.

GMs often have to pull their punches with their highly mobile monsters with ranged/spell attacks just so the melee PCs will have some fun.

I must admit that's one of the reasons I don't like much martials in PF2 and prefer to play casters: You are too dependant on luck. Rounds when I don't hit are not very fun, and rounds where I suddenly do crazy damage just because I roll 20s are also no fun to me. Having the feeling my contribution is only a matter of luck doesn't please me.

On the other hand, I find casters to be very nice. Even when the dice are against you you have a contribution, just a smaller one. It's less frustrating.

Interesting.

I usually think the psychology goes the other way for most players. For spellcaster players its often frustrating that the GM makes the save and is "in control" rather than the player and casters usually only "swing once" per se and have less chances to make an impact.

Personally I don't find single attack accuracy to be a valid metric by which to judge the game, your odds of hitting in a turn are more valuable to me, and imo, two attacks give you a great chance to hit one even with full MAP.

Agree.

I think the real metric is "Did i accomplish something fun this turn?" and for a martial you usually hit 1 or more times a round so it feels fun. If you're fighting a boss with high AC and have a hard time getting help from the party so your hit % for the whole round is dipping 50% or lower then it can start to feel a little demoralizing to the player as whole rounds go by and you do nothing.

I prefer the 2e combat system for most things but all the drawing/regrip stuff can feel worse sometimes than pf1 for some edge cases.

I deliberately said that druids are not meant to tank and spank, so the one trying to twist the discussion seems to be you.

I agree on the other hand that the fact druids have been given shield block was a bad choice, since they will be using it only during the first levels.

But again, druids are not meant to go melee ( unless shapeshifters, and because of that no need to rely on shields ).

I think you have a different opinion here than most regarding druids role.

Druids and clerics history have been as the original in combat hybrid casters (7 lvl spells for the win!) And why they can wear armor and shields. In pf2 it doesn't seem very optimal to attempt melee without wildshape but it's supposed to be viable from class history.

I’m trying to understand why sturdy runes shouldn’t be a thing. If you don’t want to shield block you don’t have to pay for it and if you are willing to spend the gold for both the base shield and the rune you will get the effects of both.

Can those who don’t agree with the sturdy rune house rule please explain the objections you have before I implement them in my game?

Ya, just for consistency it would be nice if shields had runes and operated like armor and weapons ☺️

(It would also be nice if they followed proficiency rules like armor as well since it feels weird to have monks and wizards run around raising shields)

I've had two characters die because of paralysis already, so I'm not exactly against the new rules. It's really rough to be helpless in PF1e and the enemy just straight up kills you with a Coup-De-Grace.

Ya, i always thought Coup-De-Grace was a little too easy to do in PF1.

Still feels a bit weird for paralysis in PF2 though.
It doesn't feel like "oh no Gorignak the barbarian is helpless, save him!", more like "Gorignak the (giant instinct) barbarian isn't raging anymore and actually has about the same AC as before. Don't worry about him we've got time to focus on our guys".

I have this funny mental image of the classic trope where you save the Damsel in distress who turns out to be sinister.

She gives the poisoned tea to the hero who is paralyzed but she can't quite slit his throat (even with the AC penalty) because he's too high a level for her.

If you're a dabbler, just pick any shield you want and enjoy its simple +1 or +2 AC.

I like this terminology btw (and it doesn't seem ambiguous to me).

But, as for a PC who is a Shield Professional...
...who invests in shield feats, it kind of sucks as a GM when you want to give your PC Captain Absalom a cool new shield and he sells it and just buys the Sturdy Shield for that level.

Shield mechanics are actually one of the cool things that PF2 has over 5e.
I don't know why you wouldn't want to lean in and try to make them as cool as possible. It kind of sucks as a new player to come up with this really cool dwarven fighter shield master character who uses a Forge Warden and then see it get destroyed on its first hit. That PC is going to have a bad taste in his mouth even after the GM says, "ya don't worry, you just need to get a sturdy shield all of the other ones can't block".

Not to mention that most players and GMs don't even know that you know the damage before blocking or that all these shield calculations aren't even talking about going against boss enemies where your shield is even worse with the high number of crits.

For a reference point, the disrupting (greater) rune has a slaying effect vs undead.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=294

Dward Ancesties wrote:

Nearly all dwarven peoples share a passion for stonework, metalwork, and gem-cutting. Most are highly skilled at architecture and mining, and many share a hatred of giants, orcs, and goblinoids.

This suggests that many dwarves would be prejudiced against goblins. Couldn't see any on AoN about Torag's attitude to goblins. Are you asking as a player or GM?

Technically the dwarf ancestry description still mentions goblinoids as an issue but I believe in PF2 they pretty much retconned dwarven ancestry hatred vs goblinoids and have a few places where goblinoids just haven't been edited out. Which is good since Torag paladins were like judge dredd on orcs, giants, and goblins.

From PF2 Dwarf Ancestry:

Dwarves are slow to trust those outside their kin, but this wariness is not without reason. Dwarves have a long history of forced exile from ancestral holds and struggles against the depredations of savage foes, especially giants, goblinoids, orcs, and the horrors that dwell deep below the surface. While trust from a dwarf is hard-won, once gained it is as strong as iron.

From PF1 Paladin Code

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

From PF2 Torag

Anathema: tell lies or cheat someone, intentionally create inferior works, show mercy to the enemies of your people

From Deadmanwalking

Torag is, by all indications (most notably being Good-aligned), not racist.

He's not at all forgiving of enemies...but most PC goblins would not fall under that category, and those that do would do so due to their behavior not their species.

I would say Torag actually kind of is racist but your point would still stand regarding PC goblins. When you say that you are NOT to "show mercy to the enemies of your people" its kind of a broad rule and stereotypes a decent amount. A PC could definitely view a good goblin or orc PC as an exception but in general they would be guilty until proven innocent.

So yeah, the best you could get for your trigger would be "threat moves close to me", which means they haven't yet used a Strike (or etc.) Now, the tactic still might work that round - if they come after you, you move farther than they can follow and Strike, and there's no one else around for them to Strike at ... that could still make them "lose" an opportunity. But not always, and they would still have that action for SOMEthing (maybe a Stride next to you with a murderous gleam in their three eyes?)

Rules wise would the creature be "bound" to move to a certain square with Stride or would he be allowed to follow the retreating PC?

Gorignak227 wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.

...
Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.

Ya, my Giant instinct barbarian definitely wouldn't mind denying a boss monster even just 1 attack that will likely crit in exchange for his 2nd and 3rd attacks.

Hell if there was a class feat in PF2 like the old crane wing that would automatically deny the first hit i think every class would auto take it.

Barbarians can't use it at all. At least not in their go-to state of Rage, since it's a concentrate action. So you're either not raging to do this or you're using moment of clarity to do it.

Ah, good catch.

The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.

...
Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.

Ya, my Giant instinct barbarian definitely wouldn't mind denying a boss monster even just 1 attack that will likely crit in exchange for his 2nd and 3rd attacks.

Hell if there was a class feat in PF2 like the old crane wing that would automatically deny the first hit i think every class would auto take it.

What I intended was simply note that a +1 item in 5e is much more meaningful and impactful than a +1 item in PF2, and stating that 5e did "a better job" in terms of mandatory bonuses is just ignoring this key point.

People keep saying this but can someone explain it to me?

Isn't a +1 (and soon thereafter a striking rune) in PF2 similar to getting Keen and double damage?

A +1 in 5e seems fairly insignificant since you already hit pretty often and at worst you might do half damage against some monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons which isn't that common and usually bypassed pretty easily with a Magic Weapon spell or lots of spell availability to most classes.

Gorignak227 wrote:

in practice you are so strapped for actions as a slow moving dwarf ranger that if the room wasn't small or if the enemies were ranged i was just watching the rest of my party for half of the battle.

Of course, the larger takeaway here is... don't play a slow character.

ha (single tear rolls down Harsk's cheek)

Speaking of which is there an updated Harsk pre-gen?
The one i downloaded has him set up as a dual wielding flurry ranger but who chose crossbow ace as his first feat (with a heavy crossbow)?
He was pretty bad in PF1 but thought they did a better job this time around.

Again, switch hitting works fine, you just need to know how to do it. Mathmuse has shared actual play experience with it, but that seems to be ignored based on a bunch of false assumptions, like APs happening outdoors or in large rooms being "vanishingly" small. 75% of a book is not vanishingly.

Playing as a dwarf ranger, both in a dungeon and outdoors, being a switch hitter has been absolutely required for me. (Once you can get Quick Draw). At first, I thought i could be purely melee but in practice you are so strapped for actions as a slow moving dwarf ranger that if the room wasn't small or if the enemies were ranged i was just watching the rest of my party for half of the battle.

That being said if i was GMing, I would steer new player melee rangers to 2 Hander Precision style until they get used to using Hunt Prey and possibly have access to Quick Draw so a new player isn't overwhelmed with all of the dual wield little gotchas (give them a free rebuild at lvl 2 perhaps).

And as for the rules supporting dual wielding better...
They really should have allowed Quick Draw to allow drawing 2 weapons at once and to allow combinations with a Move action instead of always requiring a strike.

Or better yet just allowing a free weapon draw when you do most any action to allow it to be used with a Twin Takedown.

What you didn't consider what that the stand up action usually takes a PC that was knocked down an extra action after coming back up to get to full combat speed.

Probably even more actions lost picking up your dropped weapons/drawing new ones.