That’s because you get wrecked on the melee with any ranger weapon. Short bows and crossbows were also used like that. And just because it dominated 1E doesn’t mean net it. Some weapons are always going to be bets at their niche. Finally, all you are doing is making shortbow the best weapon and removing an iconic weapon form use. Crossbow ranger has more support than longbow ranger.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Longbow is a bad weapona and tthere are very few feats to buff archery. Favoured aim has anti-synergy and even Crossbow seems to have more support, not to mention TWF. If I want to use companion, I have to spend less actions full attacking and getting the buff from Hunt Target.
It’s not because people don’t want or know how to do that. It’s backed it can be very disruptive the GM’s campaign. Lord of the Rings wouldn’t be as fun if they had teleport.
This sums up a lot of my thoughts. Thanks for putting them more succinctly than I can.
I greatly dislike how they’ve taken away some of the most unique parts of pathfinder that can’t be replicated in other systems. The cool rope trick escape, simulacrums, clones, planar binding pacts with devils are all some of the most unique aspects of PF1E and they’ve removed them. Why it bring other classes up instead of tear the most fun part of casters(at least for me), the mad scientists can do lots of cool magical things.
How would you get above an 18 in an ability score. It’s a playtest trying to extort lain the rules simply. It’s literally impossible to do it without optional rolling.Why does it matter if it’s trying to make sure everyone is on the same page. And it would make rolling too good if it good bypass the normal math and make super characters. Which is a worse paly experience for many as they feel compelled to take a gamble to keep up worth the arms race.
Because the default system is designed to take you from all 10s to much higher stats. If you started with nearly equivalent stats, it would almost always be better to roll. The 18restriction is for the same reason. Any somewhat sad character should roll since statistically, you will usually get one score higher than 14 and be able to get a higher stat than intended. This edition has tighter math and this is a playtest. It’s hard to get feedback if everyone is rolling random stats because it’s nearly always a significant improvement.
I agree somewhat, but I’m not sold on hunt target. I think I’d be more okay if it also allowed you to hunt target from the tracks or evidence of the target instead of having to see them and be in range. I still don’t really like how it’s not that close to actual biting and how it locks the ranger into full attacks that make any two action feat, like favoured aim, much worse. I do think your change might make the ranger better, but I would also like the some terrain abilities to stay so you don’t have to pick between thematic abilities and combat bonuses. Honestly, I’m pretty frustrated by the implementation of the ranger and haven’t really gathered my thoughts, so I want to wait and play the class before making any definitive conclusions.
Quick Study was imo, the best exploit for arcanist as it made you always have the right spell for anything prepared. It was better in combat than quick prep, but cost points and quick preparation means you can prepare only combat spells and then grab the perfect utility spells including heightening whenever you aren’t rushed. It like it as an ability, but Inthink other classes should be given something to compensate for such high power.
I agree that Ranger seems to be missing any bow support and their abilities don’t seems that synergistic. There is a lot of emphasis on buffing your allies and your animal companion, but the strongest part of ranger in 1E was combat styles and archery’s few feats look bad. Like favoured aim is a worse version of a similar fighter feat, made even worse because it take two actions. Hunt target wants you to make as many attack as possible, but you make 1 less and lose your biggest bonus if you use favoured aim, which already requires you to spend an action to hunt target.
This is the first decision that really upset me. It’s taking the worst part of 5th edition and basically asking the GM to pick the DC to everything. Like what level is a rope, why is everything arbitrary. If five GMs can all have wildly different opinions on the DC of the same task, then the system is not working. If I wanted to make up all the DCs, I would use a different system. One of Pathfinder’s strengths is fairly well-defined rules. And trivial failing half the time is ridiculous. It’s trivial, you shouldn’t fail the most basic possible task 50%. And what even is a level 3 challenge. Is making a dish level 0 or 1, what level is climbing a rope, etc. I was really in support of 2e and I’m disappointed that this section is such a let down.
What makes a rapier have more damaging crits or better at disarming than any other sword? The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
You level faster in 2e and the goal is to make it so higher levels are more played. So the bonus at 12 is less extreme than it seems. Also, DMW (I think it was him) did an analysis on save progression and it matched up with the caster bonuses.
Aiken Frost wrote:
Quick is a condition that gives you an extra action that can only be spent on certain things.edit: ninja’d
Items that have an RP requirement for their activated abilities will instead be usable 1/day.
Isn’t this an enormous nerf that destroys all the items that do so. Like the cloak of elvenkind is balanced around having many uses of invisibility per day. Making it once per day would completely invalidate the item for its cost and make it much much worse as nothing fills that niche.
I subscribed to the Starfinder Subscription to get the Alien Archive pdf and book, but I'm not sure if it went through? I got the subscription so I could get the pdf before my game on Saturday, and subscribers have gotten the pdf already, so I'm not sure what I have to do to get the pdf? Sorry, I'm pretty confused so any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
What is the reason behind preventing Alchemists from using alchemical weapons as, well, weapons? Will this ever be changed?