Sfyn's page

1. Become the Reloading Master
2. Make Reloading Fun

This. The Gunslinger "thing" seems to be working with Reload weapons, even the more "melee-oriented" build most of the time will come across reloading at some point. Unless Paizo changes the current design a lot, I believe you got the correct path to follow.

We should think of ways of making reloading a thing that you want to, your mention to combine reloading with Demoralize rings a bell as very thematic, cool and not really that overpowered, as Demoralizing itself has a limit on range of number of uses. It may step a bit on Warning Shot's toes but I believe Warning Shot is a bit on the weak side at the moment anyway.

Also, this gives us more reasons to not use Running Reload every single reload.

5. Ensure a Player Who Wants to Use Guns Isn’t Automatically Wrong for Picking Something Other Than Gunslinger

To be honest, I'm OK with Guns being more or less limited to gunslingers. I see them as technological marvels similar to the Inventor's gadgets and gating access to good gun usage feats/proficiencies behind Gunslinger Archetype seems fair. I may be on the minority here, tho.

So, the Magus has this special diminished spellcasting which it loses the lower level spell slots whenever it gets a new spell level from Level 5 onwards.

Martial Caster feat aside, does the Magus lose the ability to cast lowered level spells from a Staff? It seems counter intuitive but that's what the Staff rules state.

You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

The Magus can cast a heightened version of a level 1 spell, which counts as a higher level spell from what I understand, but, if he is level 5 or higher, he cannot cast a level 1 spell.

Two weeks ago, my party fought a high-level rogue with Twin Feint. They discovered a weakness in the tactic. Our ranger was fighting the enemy rogue with our liberator champion nearby. When the enemy damaged the ranger with the first Strike of Twin Feint, the champion used Liberating Step to give the ranger a Step. The ranger stepped out of range of the second Strike of Twin Feint. The enemy rogue ended up using two actions for what was essentially an ordinary Strike.

Is this how it should be? When Twin Feint states "Make one Strike with each of your two melee weapons" I understand they are executed simultaneously, as in, you roll the two d20s and the Strikes happen as rolled. The Liberator can choose which of the Strikes to mitigate, but both will apply its effects before the Step.

I understand from where you are coming, but from a RAW point of view, the only way I see a creature could share the movement with another creature is by mounting and by that all the limitations imposed by being mounted, basically unable to do anything but move.

I did not find any way to wear or carry a creature, even if its Tiny. I don't see a reason for a GM to flat out prohibit that, its useful but not game breaking, specially on an Alchemist.

As a player, I don't feel comfortable by showing up with a "combo" that requires some GM adjudication to work. By reading the familiar rules myself, I understand they work similar to an animal companion, they are minions, you spend actions to command them, they have AC/HP/Saves/etc and they move on the board following the rules of a Tiny creature, which can share a space with other creatures.

I guess I'll have to ask on a case by case basis and hope for a FAQ entry but since it seems I'm alone on this it probably won't happen. Thanks for the responses.

Sfyn wrote:

Valet doesn't seem that great. For a melee Toxicologist, it would have to spend a lot of their actions moving to reach the Alchemist.

Why would the familiar need to move around? It just sits on your shoulder and pulls stuff out of your bandolier to give them to you.

I believe this is a permissive approach to the Familiar rules, can't see it being legal in PFS for example.

Valet doesn't seem that great. For a melee Toxicologist, it would have to spend a lot of their actions moving to reach the Alchemist.
Ranged Toxicologists could pre-poison all the ammunition beforehand as poison doesn't expire from what I've seen.

So, when I first read the Toxicologist 1st level benefit, I thought it worked as the Rogue's Poison Weapon feat: 1-action to apply a poison you have to your weapon.

However, on a better read, I see there are some limitations which, IMO, may strongly push Toxicologists to grab Poison Weapon via Rogue MCD.

You can apply an injury poison you're holding to a weapon you're wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity

This means you basically spend all your 3 actions to make a Strike with poison. If you grab Poison Weapon you get greatly enhanced action economy, is there a special reason for this holding requirement? Any unseen interactions with Alchemist features?

I'd say you should avoid Double Shot and Triple Shot as a Flurry Ranger.
Flurry Rangers deal comparable whiteroom damage to a Fighter with Triple Shot, so we can conclude a Flurry Ranger using Triple Shot is a downgrade as you are not using your class' main damage boost, lowered MAP.

Ranger is light on archery feats, you get your power mostly from Hunter's Edge and Hunted Shot at 1st level. Distracting Shots at higher levels are also very strong. If you want to power up archery with class feats and don't want to pick up other Ranger utilities you can pick up Rogue Dedication and Sneak attack, if your party has a way to apply flat-footed for ranged attackers (Trip, Grapple, bottled lightning, Shared Stratagem, etc...).

I imagine Double Slice may be better than it looks, but something almost has to have gone wrong with that math for it to look that good.

From my calculations, it's a 10% to 12% increase from level 2 to 20 in damage when using two weapons with two actions versus Striking twice with an Agile weapon. This is assuming a d6 weapon with no other traits besides Agile and adding 1d6 elemental damage runes whenever possible. You can edge around 15% increase if you have a main hand with a d8 die.

For reference, for level 2 against AC 16 (flat-footed hard AC). Two strikes gets 14.3 average DPR and Double Slice gets 16.04 average DPR, between 15 and 18, as you predicted. Lowering the AC to moderate (14) we have 17.6 DPR for 2 Strikes and 19.81 (citricking's 20) for Double Slice.

It seems viable, but not dominant. The hassle of drawing two weapons, using two hands and the class feat cost could turn some people away from it, me included.

I missed the fact that Eldritch Shot uses a spell attack roll, so if you took Basic Spellcasting for Wizard MC or Witch MC then Eldritch Shot is already using Int. Wow!

I don't think so, it skips the spell attack roll and merges the effects with the bow Strike.

... Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. ...

Eldritch Archer seems great for Investigators because of Enchanting Arrow, in my opinion. Investigators usually attack only once, so you give extra oomph to that single Strike.

Which seems to imply that you don't have to use INT to use Devise a Strategem.

Hmm...

You don't have to. "When you make this substitution (the dice roll), you can also add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier..."

But I believe most cases your INT will have a higher or equal modifier to STR/DEX, unless you dump INT. I believe Devise a Stratagem was created with the intent that you don't dump INT - it may be viable to dump it tho, you get more "combat" stats but have a modifier 1 lower at levels 1-4, 10-14 and 20.

Man that’s so awesome the way it’s written.

That means trips, grapples, Demoralize are all actions you can take before making a strike to turn a hit into a critical or a miss into a hit and if you fail at either.

Unless I’m missing something. Still waiting on my copy.

Yeah, from what I see from the Investigator preview, as long as you don't take the feat that allows you to make Athletics checks with the result of the Stratagem ability, you can use Grapple/Trip to apply flat-footed and turn a miss into a hit (or into a crit) if you have some knowledge of the enemies AC.

If you take the feat you can't do this anymore since "You must apply the substitution to the first eligible attack you make, whether it's a Strike or one of the Athletics actions". A little counter intuitive but understandable. Demoralize and Feint are still options for this strategy tho, even with the feat.

From what I can see, the 'fastest' builds to actually take Red Mantis Dedication would be:

• A Fighter can take it at level 2
• A Human taking a class proficient in all martial weapons could also take it at level 2 (Taking the General Training feat at level 1 to gain saber proficiency)
• A Human taking a class proficient in all simple weapons could take it at level 4 (Taking the General Training feat at level 1 to gain Martial proficiency, and then Weapon Proficiency again at level 3 for the saber itself)

I understand that a Human Rogue can choose Versatile Heritage for a General Feat to take Weapon Proficiency and then get General Training as an Ancestry Feat to get Weapon Proficiency again.

Doing this seems the easiest way to get Red Mantis Assassin at Level 2 as a Rogue.

As with most of the Investigator current features, conceptually is very cool but super underwhelming in practice. I've been running Combat Clue with no time limit and it seems alright.

I was looking at the Elixir of Life progression something felt off.
You jump from 1d6 to 3d6+6. Healing 1d6 is okay at first level but pretty inadequate after that. At level 5, it jumps to 3d6+6, almost 5 times the average healing of the last level.
I was thinking of smoothing out the curve and Paizo's design intent seemed very clear by looking at the Elixirs of Life themselves.
They seem to improve similarly to 2 action Heal spell as spell levels progress. While Heal improves by 1d8+8, Elixirs of Life improve by 1d6+3.
The increases happen at every 2 spell levels, except Major at Level 15, which increases the bonus to saves vs poison/disease.
Considering that, we can create new Elixirs of Life for the missing spell levels, smoothing out the Alchemist healing curve.
I didn't increase the saves bonuses since Major was created in a "half-step", increasing the bonus. I'd say Paizo would create another "half-step" Elixir if the bonus to saves would be increased.
Since Alchemists are currently being seen as a little bit weaker than most, I don't see this being damaging to balance.

- Minor: Level 1 (spell level 1) - 1d6, +1 to saves
- Minor+: Level 3 (spell level 2) - 2d6+3, +1 to saves
- Lesser: Level 5 (spell level 3) - 3d6+6, +1 to saves
- Lesser+: Level 7 (spell level 4) - 4d6+9, +1 to saves
- Moderate: Level 9 (spell level 5) - 5d6+12, +2 to saves
- Moderate+: Level 11 (spell level 6) - 6d6+15, +2 to saves
- Greater: Level 13 (spell level 7) - 7d6+18, +2 to saves
- Major: Level 15 (spell level 8) - 8d6+21, +3 to saves
- Major+: Level 17 (spell level 9) - 9d6+24, +3 to saves
- True: Level 19 (spell level 10) - 10d6+27, +4 to saves

What do you guys think about it?

From calculations and play, I believe crossbows are fine if you play a Ranger. They start to lose vs bows when weapon specialization and property runes kick in but get a big boost with Penetrating Shot at level 10.

Crossbow Rangers will, on average, deal less whiteroom DPR than Bow ones but moving is part of their main attack routine (Running Reload) which can be useful. Their damage is also loaded on one big hit, which helps with some circumstancial single-strike bonuses like Flat-footed from Hidden or True Strike.

Any other class will be severely disadvantaged tho. Crossbow Ace and Running Reload (and precision edge, to some extent) are necessary for a crossbow to be competitive.

An idea is to give easier access to those features. An archetype or something similar. You could also bake Crossbow Ace directly into crossbows by default.

K1 wrote:

Quote:

You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.

So you could ride it, but it won't have the mount benefits.

As for the stats, they are explained in the companion section

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=149

About the attacks and features, guess you have to check the Wolf companimo which is on the companion animal list.

Remember also that the talent says

If you were a paladin, you could Select a Wolf as divine Steed, even if it has not the mount ability.

Which means that a champion is mostly tied to a Steed, while a Goblin champion with its perk could chose a Wolf.

This won't give the Wolf the mount perk.

As a ranger you won't need that talent as you were a champion.

I am not sure how this answers my question? I know I can ride it, I just need to know what the stats are and what happens when I level up. This trait implies I have access to a goblin dog or wolf mount meaning I would be able to ride either option and take them instead of one of the listed animal companions but it doesn't say anyhwere what their stats would be or what happens when I level

If you read the rules exactly as written this is what you get:

There is no "goblin dog" animal companion and the feat does not give access to that. However, the wolf animal companion description says "a wolf or other canine such as a dog". I'd say goblin dog is included there so use the "wolf animal companion" stats for your goblin dog.

First of all, thanks for the answers.

I see and understand most of your points but 2 factors still bug me:

First, at the moment, I understand that PF2E assumes a (almost) full HP party before every encounter. Treat Wounds was created during playtest so that a healing font Cleric wasn't mandatory for all groups because of this assumption. A low level party does not have enough treasure to stock on potions so they can't reliably heal on a timely manner.

Second, how do you explain in-world spending 10 minutes for no results at all? Also followed by a 1-hour "cooldown". This bugs me the worst.

Medicine becomes a very powerful tool when you invest skill feats on it, but even the most skilled will (barring assurance), some percentage of the time, heal for absolutely nothing on a willing creature, outside of combat. It's very hard for me to swallow this but it seems I'm on the minority.

I've been through some issues regarding Treat Wounds during play, it seems to be too unreliable for a good adventure flow, breaks immersion and discourages pressing on.

I'm GMing Plaguestone with 3 characters: Melee Ranger with an animal companion, Crossbow Ranger and a Thief Rogue. Whenever Treat Wounds was needed, we felt something was off.

At 1st level, the three of them are trained in Medicine, sporting 12, 14 and 16 Wisdom for a total of +4, +5 and +6 Medicine. The idea was so everyone could heal themselves since we had no Cleric or similar character. Considering that, we are looking at 50%, 55% and 60% of success/crit success on Treat Wounds for Trained DC 15.

In a small group of 3, and I believe this would apply similarly on a default 4-player party, at least 2 of them (the melees, and sometimes the companion) would require healing after an encounter, sometimes all 3 would. The Boar encounter was specially damaging since it has high speed in conjunction with an accurate and strong Boar Charge move, which downed the ranged Ranger with a single blow.

A Treat Wounds failure heals nothing and puts the character in a 1-hour lockout from another try. After 3 consecutive failures (~10%, not that improbable), the character with 0 HP has yet to be able to stand. They spent a lot of time drinking tea with Trin while being bandaged for 30 minutes total in a span of 2 hours for... absolutely no effect, I could see the disappointment in my players' eyes.

Moments after this, everyone declared they were taking Assurance(Medicine) and/or Medicine related skill feats as soon as possible so the game would run better, if not for the mechanical effect, for the feeling that when they stop to heal, they are guaranteed to heal at least something.

Since I had already read all the module, just imagining Hallod's Hideout with such unreliable healing made shiver a little. With that in mind, I made a ruling on the spot. From now on, every time you Treat Wounds you heal for "success chance times 9 (4~5), doubled for 1h (8~10)", which would be something close to the average healing for 2d8 over time and promised to do some deeper math considering critical failures and successes and try to find a solution for that.

So, I bring this to my fellow players and GMs, am I missing something? Is this how it works? Have you had any problems similar to this?

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Monk would be my second. Monastic Weaponry at 1 will let you flurry and stunning fist with Shuriken, which don't need quickdraw.

Sadly, Monastic Weaponry specifies melee weapons, so no flurry-stun shuriken.

Good point.

So Human Monk with Natural Ambition (Monastic Weaponry), Ranger Dedication at 1, and Hunted Shot at level 2.
Takes an extra action to setup, but boost your range to 40' range so you can still throw and run. Possibly grab far shot down the line as well.

All dedications require Level 2 sadly.

Sfyn wrote:

IMO, it's really dumb you need to Strike on the same round for Crossbow Ace, feels like an unnecessary limitation.

You missed a word:

"You must make the attack before the end of your next turn or these benefits are lost."

you don't miss the bonuses of Ace.

Holy ****, its true. Thanks for pointing it out.

It's basically an extra roll for a very nice extra bonus, that doesn't actually cost you anything (since you would interact either way, and even failing the roll still leaves you exactly as before, hidden)

Would you? Interact removes hidden by RAW. RAI I believe I'd follow your take.

You still attack every turn while they are flat footed:

(you are hidden):
Strike (flat footed)->you become visible.
Hide-> you become hidden
Sneak/reload->you move to a new location and become undetected

new round:

Strike (flat footed)_> you become visible
Hide-> you become hidden
Sneak/reload->you move to a new location and become undetected

etc

As for interact breking "hidden", interact is after the Sneak, so you are already "Unobserved" at that point, not merely hidden. And that one doesn't break with interacts.

You could:

You don't risk rolling 2 Stealth checks and get Crossbow Ace bonus to boot (reload & strike on same turn). You don't end the turn hidden, which is a use for Sneak tho.

If you could use Running Reload to become hidden it would be 1 action cheaper and allow things like using Hunter's Aim. That was the point I wanted clarification.

IMO, it's really dumb you need to Strike on the same round for Crossbow Ace, feels like an unnecessary limitation.

running reload is still usable while sneaking.

so you can "Strike->hide->sneak to a new location while reloading"
next round you Strike from your new location, and repeat.

It does require to be several places where you can "take cover" to hide behind though as you go from place to place

Yes, you can use Running Reload to move while hidden, but cannot use it to become hidden. The way Captain Morgan put it, I took as you could use Sneak to gain the hidden condition but that is not possible.

To gain flat-footed bonuses you have to be hidden and you become observed after Striking, so you need the Hide action to get the bonus. Running Reload only helps if you are already hidden.

Also, this is something that could be RAW vs RAI but Hide states you "cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak or Step" and Running Reload states "you Sneak, then Interact to reload". This Interact is not Hide/Step/Sneak and would make you observed making Running Reload pointless for Sneaking.

Sfyn wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

The nice thing about Running Reload is the tactial movement, getting clear lines of fire to remove cover bonuses or sneaking to get targets flat-footed. Or just avoiding damage to yourself. That stuff is pretty hard to factor into white room DPR calculations, but I'm pretty convinced it can make up for the gap with the bow, and it certainly makes for a more engaging play style than the PF1 five foot step machine gun turret longbow.

I've seen people saying that you can use the Sneak action to get hidden (and get flat-footed bonuses) multiple times, but when I read the Sneak action what I understand is you only keep hidden from creatures you are already hidden from. What am I missing?

You have to use the Hide action before Sneaking. The Sneak action is used to move without being detected. The Hide action enters you into "stealth mode."

Edit: You could also use something like Invisibility to Sneak, as Invisibility automatically makes you Hidden.

So Running Reload doesn't help at all to get flat-footed bonuses, you need to use the Hide action like any other character. I guess hiding "for free" (since you are reloading every turn) would be too good.

*hide & sneak* explanation

Understood, that's what I was getting myself from the rules. Thanks for the clarification.

The nice thing about Running Reload is the tactial movement, getting clear lines of fire to remove cover bonuses or sneaking to get targets flat-footed. Or just avoiding damage to yourself. That stuff is pretty hard to factor into white room DPR calculations, but I'm pretty convinced it can make up for the gap with the bow, and it certainly makes for a more engaging play style than the PF1 five foot step machine gun turret longbow.

I've seen people saying that you can use the Sneak action to get hidden (and get flat-footed bonuses) multiple times, but when I read the Sneak action what I understand is you only keep hidden from creatures you are already hidden from. What am I missing?

White Room DPR comparisons fail to capture the tactical significance of Running Reload. Being able to Stride or Sneak (as opposed to just step with Skirmish Strike) means being able to more easily bypass cover and render yourself hidden and therefore the enemy flatfooted. That can swing your chance to hit up by as much as +4 easy, which is very nice on a single high damage attack action.

From what I read on the Sneak action, you cannot become hidden, only keep the condition.

I feel like you're missing some stuff in your analysis. If your Fighter is going to get away without spending an action to draw their weapon I'm not sure why your Ranger needs to use Quick Draw for it. That said, if the ranger is using Quick Draw they should have an extra attack on the 1st round. Also, if the Fighter is going to invest in Point-Blank Shot how do things change if they use a Longbow? How does this all change if you're outside of Point-Blank Shot range?

Thanks for pointing it out, I really forgot to draw a weapon as Fighter, my bad.

Well, everytime we add extra variables the simple comparison starts to break apart. It felt useful to see Ranger is not far behind Fighter, and we can even argue its ahead (sans Multishot Stance at 16, requiring you to stay still) on damage.

I did comparisons for all levels here

The Archer ranger looks better off to me.

They are really not too far apart by your analysis. Down to personal preference I'd say.

I made a whiteroom comparison where a level 6 (triple shot minimum) Fighter and Ranger, both Archers shoot unimpeded assuming:

Both use a +1 striking composite shortbow.
Both have 18 DEX and 14 STR.
Fighter has Point Blank Shot, Double Shot and Triple Shot.
Ranger has Hunted Shot, Flurry Edge and Quick Draw.
Both target a AC 22 opponent.

1st Round:
Fighter: Point-Blank Shot, Double Shot = 18 avg. damage
Ranger: Hunt Prey, Quick Draw, Hunted Shot = 16 avg. damage

Following Rounds:
Fighter: Triple Shot = 21 avg. damage
Ranger: Hunted Shot, Strike, Strike = 20 avg. damage

I'd say damage wise its very similar. You would choose Fighter if you want more martial versatility or Ranger for overall exploration utility and mobility.

Funny that you mention this. This is one feat I'm going to try and fit into my build because the one or two times per level that it actually did anything at all in PF1, I enjoyed just getting the opportunity to try and make it useful. But you know what made it work? My wand of Speak with Animals. That was what made Wild Empathy a secret little gold nugget in the Ranger default class. Do you know the creative things you can do when you can speak to an animal that is your friend? Do you know the places rats and mice can get into?

How am I going to get info from an animal with Wild Empathy? It doesn't say I can speak with animals, only says I can make a request. Do I really need to pay a feat for this?

This gets into "what can a INT 3 animal convey as information", a nice discussion for every table. Can the bird draw a simple "map" with 3 dots representing creatures? Ask your DM, fun times.

If its worth a feat or not... I'd say it could be baseline. Druids get it baseline tho, they may feel their toes getting stepped on. In the end, I'll take the wand.

A heavily animal companion focused character takes feats at 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18... SO 2nd, 8th and 20 are for your heavy ranged combat/damage?

I expressed myself badly. Maybe not "heavily" but "reasonably". I'd skip Companion's Cry at L4, Side by Side at L12 and Masterful Companion at L18 since they don't help with shooting things, they are fit for Rangers which attack mostly with the pet. Stealthy Companion can also be skipped if your companion has no stealth synergy. Focus on keeping the pet alive and able to support you every turn.

For an Archer Hunted Shot is necessary, Distracting Shot really great, Greater Distracting shot good to have. You still have some space to fit extras.

Can they? How are you having your bird scout and then tell you the info? "what is it lassie? Did Timmy fall down the well again?"

I'd say Wild Empathy can help you with this.

I don't hate it but, IMO, it leaves a LOT to be desired. It could do the things you say, but it's all different tracks that don't cross over each other when they could before: so you could be a sharpshooter OR be an animal trainer OR a tracker OR... when before there were some ANDS in there.

I can see the issues. Its less things, but more defined IMO. This will be a matter of opinion and a design philosophy 2E seems to embrace. I may be against but if homebrewing extra class feats makes you feel more complete/diverse it's the fact you can have fun that matters.

But, I think Neo, like myself, is reacting against the loss of agency from PF1 to PF2 for the class. I don't think it's even debatable that the class can do less. The question is whether it can do enough to evoke a higher level of enjoyment (because simply matching PF1 is a net loss). I'm not going to try and tell him the class can be "competent" I'm going to hope that it is fun, whatever it is.

[...]

And I get that. It's a valid reason to get excited and want to play the class. So argue that. Trying to argue "competency" when we haven't actually played these builds feels like a stretch. Better to acknowledge the short comings rather than insist they don't exist.

This is the thing: some of what you see as shortcomings I see as qualities. I cannot prove to you they are qualities but I can argue for them. Maybe the word choice of "competency" was bad and I apologize for it, I meant "fun".

That's a big step back for someone that's used to being "competent" in more than pure damage: rangers were good at skills, good at fighting styles, good at pets... So being able to deal some damage now isn't sounding too awesome.

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say that a Ranger which invests heavily on a Animal Companion and Archery is able to deal a very high amount of damage from range. A bear companion granting extra d8s per hit on a character which can reliably strike 3 times per turn and consistently apply flat-footed with a very low MAP seems competitive, if not top notch. This would be following what breithauptclan said: the 2E Ranger's shtick seems to be focusing an enemy and dealing with it.

However, you can build your ranger to be more focused on exploration, stealth, tracking and/or knowledge. Even Animal Companion feats can become "exploration feats" if you build for a different type of companion, such as a stealthy bird.

I wouldn't see as a downgrade, but a concept shift. If you visit 5e circles you can see the conflict of the Ranger concept being seen as a watered down fighter-rogue-druid combination. The 2E Ranger is looking for its own thing: hunting. You hunt prey. You may hunt by doing a lot of single-target damage. You may hunt by being an invisible force of nature. You may hunt by being a peerless tracker. You may hunt with a loyal partner to maul/track/scout your prey. I personally like it, a lot.

I've seen a lot of these type of assertions. It really depends on a person's perspective on what "competent" means. And honestly, we won't know how "competent" a build that you suggest is in actual play until you're sitting next to an Archery Fighter and/or a Animal Druid.

By competent I mean "is able to pull its weight", in this case by contributing with meaningful DPR. It is a fact that this is dependent on many factors (DM, encounters, adventure...) but PF2E is a game we can "test" with a spreadsheet.

That's easy to say when theorycrafting. I played an archery Ranger with a companion and this build isn't what I would consider competent at both. In addition, you're devoid of all the traditional Ranger abilities:

[...ranger ability list...]

I understand you would say these are core rangers feature since we are used to have them from past editions. It is a fact my proposed build skips all "exploration feats" but this is something I find fair if you are going for a dual-focus build.

You're also skipping some of the more powerful Ranger feats for both Animal Companions and Archers:

[...feat list...]

While your list has interesting choices, you have to give some up for a build. Giving things up is the interesting part of choice, without that there is no choice.

On the list, my rationale:

• - I personally don't think Hunter's Aim and Penetrating Shot are that good to archers. They are definitely very strong for crossbowmen. Sadly Targeting Shot has one of them as a prerequisite.
  
• - Masterful Companion is an improvement, but if you choose an animal focused on giving the Support bonus (Bear looks like a good choice for a flurry archer) it will be an unneeded upgrade.
  
• - Impossible Volley can be interesting but AoE can be covered by a teammate.
  
• - Master Monster Hunter seems to me a huge investment for that +1 to one attack, once per target.
  
• - Favored Terrain/Terrain Master don't look that strong and would fit better on a build with more spare feats.
  
• - Blind-fight and Sense the Unseen look good. I would see no problem to get them at level 8 and 14 on my proposed build.
  

Simply asserting feats which deal with two different disciplines doesn't suddenly made the build "competent." That having been said, I do think that the some of the class feat locking might help, but that may get eroded by splat books. And maybe any build might feel a lot more viable. I don't know. But simply listing feats isn't really a compelling argument.

Listing feats is no good argument, but I believed it served its purpose since you felt like answering and I can be more thorough. I feel the current edition is defined on the 'choice' thing and I am really excited about it. Having a limited pool of choices makes the choices more exciting and avoids the ability bloat some of us may find on a high level character in the past.

I don't feel this way...
You used Ranger as an example, you can make a pretty competent Archer/Pet Ranger. Dual-wielding is more heavy on feats but also doable with a companion. Human's Natural Ambition helps a lot on these.

As an example: Archer/Pet Ranger
L1 Animal Companion
L1 Hunted Shot (Natural Ambition)
L2 Quick Draw
L4 Far Shot (pretty minor, tbh)
L6 Mature Animal Companion
L8 Deadly Aim (also not super necessary)
L10 Incredible Companion
L12 Distracting Shot
L14 ... dunno, something you missed from past levels or multiclass
L16 Specialized Companion
L18 Greater Distracting Shot
L20 Have Fun

By my time spent theorycrafting I feel you can focus totally on one field and get some extras or be very competent in two fields. Actually looks very fair in my opinion.