| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: Given what we know now, the math on Hunt Target looks bad. Furthermore, it looks bad in a way continuous with other big PF2 red flags. Unless Paizo wants to return to the grand D&D tradition of crappy rangers, they'll probably need to revise it.
THE PROBLEM: Hunt Target lets you spend an action to reduce your multiple attack penalty, letting you land more hits over time. But that's an action you could've just used to attack instead, thereby landing more hits right up front. Thus means Hunting a Target is an investment that only starts showing returns after you've spent multiple rounds standing next to that target (for the melee ranger; archers just stand still) and whaling on it.
HOW (MAYBE) TO FIX IT: Paizo probably needs to insulate Hunt Target from the opportunity cost the PF2 action economy will impose on basically everything. Here's an option I think they should seriously consider: let the ranger hunt an adjacent target as a free action immediately after using the Stride action. It's simple, throws melee rangers a bone, and nicely plays into the ranger fantasy of a mobile striker. (It also solves a subtler problem: it's actually way better not to Hunt a melee target until the round after you've moved to engage it, since then you're trading your third instead of your second and can actually benefit from Hunting on the round you use it. This is super counterintuitive, and I bet like half the people in my gaming group wouldn't think to play that way.)
THE SPECIFICS: On what I think is plausibly a standard case, it takes it takes 4 full rounds of doing nothing but staying still and attacking for Hunt Target to pay off (3 to almost break even). How often do you think that will happen in actual play? How many enemies do you think will even survive that long? (If Hunt Target indeed takes an action, it only approaches being a good idea against big sacks of HP. Think your ranger will be the only one attacking them?)
Of course, "break even" ≠ "adds damage." Hunt Target takes even longer to do that in any significant way. In the example case I used, Hunting gets you about a 6% damage increase (slightly worse than +1 to attack) over 10 rounds of doing nothing but attacking the same target. Obviously, those 10 rounds will never happen in actual play.
WHY THIS IS WORRISOME: Three reasons. First, it's bad when a class's defining feature sucks. Second, it's bad when a class's defining feature requires playing in the most boring possible way for it to not suck. Third, and more deeply, it's emblematic of the big danger facing PF2's action economy: three completely fungible actions per round means that without really careful design, the player will have a lot of options that serve the exact same goal (here, and typically, single target damage) but would have to use annoying arithmetic on a case-by-case basis to figure out which of those options serves that goal best in a given situation. This is the opposite of what you want in a tabletop RPG.
You're a mid-level ranger with a pair of +3 agile weapons with a d6 damage die (shortswords, say). You do +5 damage from ability scores, feats, etc. and get +2 damage dice on a critical hit. (So, you average 15.5 damage on a hit, and an extra 7 on a crit.)
You're fighting a single target whom you have a 75% chance to hit with your best attack. You don't start Hunting the target until you're right up next to it.
Two-weapon fighting reduces the multiple attack penalty by 1, so you attack at -0/-3/-6 normally and at -0/-2/-4 against a hunted target.
UPSHOT: For this ranger against this enemy, Hunt Target adds 2.675 expected damage to a full volley of three Strikes (30.7 with hunting; 33.375 without). Since the opportunity cost of using it is a Strike at -6 (7.325 expected damage), it takes 4 full rounds of doing nothing but attacking for it to pay off (it almost breaks even after 3).
ROUND-BY-ROUND ANALYSIS
round 1
--) Don't Hunt: 30.7 expected damage (strike at -0, strike at -3, strike at -6)
--) Hunt: 24.5 expected damage (hunt, strike at -0, strike at -2)
round 2+
--) Don't Hunt: 30.7 expected damage (strike at -0, strike at -3, strike at -6)
--) Hunt: 33.375 expected damage (strike at -0, strike at -2, strike at -4)
round 2 total: 61.4 don't hunt vs 57.875 hunt (hunt overall impact: -1.77 damage/round)
round 3 total: 92.1 don't hunt vs. 91.25 hunt (hunt overall impact: -0.28 damage/round)
round 4 total: 122.8 don't hunt vs. 124.625 hunt (hunt overall impact: +0.46 damage/round)
** HUNT BREAKS EVEN **
(...)
round 10 total: 307 hunt vs. 324.875 hunt (hunt overall impact: +1.79 damage/round)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES
You can't make a judgment based on previews! Surely, there will be other system interactions that make Hunt Target good!
One would hope. Unfortunately, Paizo's current trajectory doesn't inspire that much confidence, for two reasons.
(1) Look at Starfinder or Ultimate Wilderness. Both were high-profile recent releases wherein a lot of central mechanical elements were badly designed in ways that basic math would've shown immediately. This leads me to suspect that for one reason or another, mathematical analysis is not a major part of current Paizo design culture.
(2) These previews are meant to build anticipation. Paizo should be showing off the highlights. They should expect the things they show us will make us think about how brilliant PF2's design looks like it's going to be. When this doesn't happen, one naturally wonders why.
Your math doesn't show anything! The real game will have different numbers!
Of course it will. But once you grant the basic "fewer hits now, more hits over time" tradeoff, the precise numbers aren't actually that important. If the numbers we can infer now are within miles of the right ballpark, spending an action on Hunt Target still will be unlikely to pay off in most realistic encounters.
Won't Hunt Target be better if you're hasted, though?
Yes. In that case, it should pretty much break even after two rounds of pure attacking, and be comparable to a +1 attack bonus after four or five. Being really accurate also helps, but not as dramatically.
What are you even worried about?! Eventually the ranger gets to Hunt Target as a free action, which takes care of everything!
Yeah, at 19th level. I'm talking about actual play. Capstones should take class abilities over the top, not make them functional.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say Mr. Ranger is surprised by an adjacent enemy. On his turn, he could swing 3 times for 0-5-10 penalties, or he can spend an action, and attack twice for 0-4 (or 0-3 with Agile weaponry), thereby being more likely to hit (and crit) with his 2nd attack, and the third attack being negligible otherwise.
Mr. Ranger is more consistent with "full attacks" than any other class due to significantly reducing penalties with his feature, and later on he can activate it freely, no actions required.
The problem I have is how much that betrays the "no sitting still and full attacking" issue that we were trying to do away with from PF1, since on paper, that will be his biggest source of DPR, but also how to defeat him (just by denying him more than one attack).
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
These conclusions are strongly based on the numbers you chose are not as resistant to slight alterations as it might seem; it all depends on the value of that final attack you would be subbing for a Hunt Target, which in your example has a 45% chance to hit the target before using Hunt Target. That's going to be pretty high, certainly higher than you would ever expect against a solo enemy, more like a bunch of mooks where Hunt Target isn't really necessary to mow them down. For instance, two-weapon fighting does not reduce multiple attack penalty to -3/-6, so eliminating that assumption, decreases the chance to hit of that last attack to 35%. If you start with a 60% chance to hit with your first attack instead of a 75% chance to hit, now we're at a 20% chance to hit with the last attack (pre Hunt). At this point, you're ahead in round 3 (if you were hasted, you're significantly ahead in round 2, the first round after the Hunt). Against a big boss who's much higher level than you and uses a shield, you might even have a 50/50 on that first attack, which brings the chance of the third hit you didn't take to a 10% chance, and you easily exceed the value on the next round without haste. For ranged where the MAP was higher, the value of the third attack is actually lower so you make it up even sooner, particularly with range increments. For melee, if you're at a fair distance against an enemy that's also melee, you might find a round with Hunt, laying a snare or Recalling Knowledge (based on the build), and letting the enemy spend actions to advance is better than advancing and then letting it rip into you (offer potentially void if you have other melees who were going to advance anyway).
I noticed two big assumptions that are incorrect that could affect the math.
- get +2 damage dice on a critical hit
- Two-weapon fighting reduces the multiple attack penalty by 1, so you attack at -0/-3/-6 normally and at -0/-2/-4 against a hunted target.
Unless I'm incredibly mistaken, crits are supposed to double your damage, so that's supposed to be 15.5 damage extra instead of just plain 7, unless you're considering only deadly damage.
Critical Success You deal double damage—you roll twice as many damage dice and add double the ability modifier and double any other bonuses to damage.
This is a large swing in the math for any crits that come off Hunt Target.
Secondly, two-weapon fighting makes the attacks -0/-4/-8 normally, and -0/-3/-6 when using Hunt. It's only -0/-2/-4 when at level 17.
For example, at 17th level, the masterful hunter feature decreases the ranger's multiple attack penalty to -3 (or -2 with agile weapon) with his second attack and -6 (or -4 with agile weapons) on his third or further attack
I addressed all these things in the OP. (fwiw I do think you were totally on point in your reply to my "wand of CLW post", though, and should've replied saying as much.)
Let's say Mr. Ranger is surprised by an adjacent enemy. On his turn, he could swing 3 times for 0-5-10 penalties, or he can spend an action, and attack twice for 0-4 (or 0-3 with Agile weaponry), thereby being more likely to hit (and crit) with his 2nd attack, and the third attack being negligible otherwise.
It was buried in the "math" part of my post, but the preview blog post implies TWF also reduces your multiple attack penalties, presumably by 1. On top of agile weapons, that's 0/-3/-6 or 0/-2. That -6 isn't negligible.
Mr. Ranger is more consistent with "full attacks" than any other class due to significantly reducing penalties with his feature
Apart from maybe aesthetics, which is no basis for class design, the WHOLE POINT of "more consistent with full attacks" is getting more hits over time. As it stands, trading an attack to do this isn't worth it given plausible assumptions about the numbers. If you think my numbers aren't plausible, try some of your own and see if it looks different.
later on he can activate it freely, no actions required.
When "later on" means "at 19th level," then "later on" means "never."
Unless I'm incredibly mistaken, crits are supposed to double your damage, so that's supposed to be 15.5 damage extra instead of just plain 7, unless you're considering only deadly damage.
Thanks--I completely missed that! (I suspect I was thinking of Power Attack.)
Given the rest of my numbers, that makes Hunt Target slightly better. It breaks exactly even on round 3 (rather than coming close) and increases overall damage over ten rounds by 6.4% rather than 5.8%. tbh, I'm surprised it didn't have a bigger impact.
Secondly, two-weapon fighting makes the attacks -0/-4/-8 normally, and -0/-3/-6 when using Hunt. It's only -0/-2/-4 when at level 17.
For example, at 17th level, the masterful hunter feature decreases the ranger's multiple attack penalty to -3 (or -2 with agile weapon) with his second attack and -6 (or -4 with agile weapons) on his third or further attack
I took this:
The specifics of the Hunt Target ability make the ranger excel at a variety of combat styles, especially his traditional two-weapon fighting (since you can decrease the multiple attack penalty with agile attacks to be incredibly small)
to imply that the agile weapon reduction stacks with TWF, which is what my math assumed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running some alternative numbers.
Round 1:
Not Hunting: .7*x+.45*x+.2*x+(.2*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 1.65*x
Hunting: .7*x+.5*x+(.2*x+.05*x) = 1.45*x
Round 2:
Not Hunting: .7*x+.45*x+.2*x+(.2*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 1.65*x
Hunting: .7*x+.5*x+.3*x+(.2*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 1.8*x
Upon reaching two rounds, not hunting will deal 3.3x damage, while hunting will deal 3.25x damage. Third round onwards is gravy.
Low accuracy case?
Round 1:
Not Hunting: .5*x+.25*x+.05*x+(.05*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 0.95*x
Hunting: .5*x+.3*x+(.05*x+.05*x) = 0.9*x
Round 2:
Not Hunting: .5*x+.25*x+.05*x+(.05*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 0.95*x
Hunting: .5*x+.3*x+.1*x+(.05*x+.05*x+.05*x) = 1.05*x
Upon reaching two rounds, not hunting will have dealt 1.9x damage, while hunting will have dealt 1.95x. Slightly ahead.
Yeah Ludovicus, I think I have to agree with your premise. Its way too close to being a wash from an action-effectiveness standpoint. Reminds me a lot of Deadly Aim in Starfinder... worth it only in narrow situations, and even then its never super satisfying.
@Mark Seifter:
I've noticed this design is very similar to the Exo-cortex Mechanic in Starfinder. In that game, what I've found is that most players want to use their combat targeting on every creature they want to attack. What they don't realize is that that's almost always a bad idea mathematically, as most of the small-fry enemies die before 2 rounds have elapsed. They're doing marginally worse damage than if they hadn't used it.
Have you considered providing some kind of tip baked into the description of the ability to help alert players that this is for 'bosses and big bad threats only'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These conclusions are strongly based on the numbers you chose are not as resistant to slight alterations as it might seem; it all depends on the value of that final attack you would be subbing for a Hunt Target, which in your example has a 45% chance to hit the target before using Hunt Target. That's going to be pretty high, certainly higher than you would ever expect against a solo enemy, more like a bunch of mooks where Hunt Target isn't really necessary to mow them down. For instance, two-weapon fighting does not reduce multiple attack penalty to -3/-6, so eliminating that assumption, decreases the chance to hit of that last attack to 35%. If you start with a 60% chance to hit with your first attack instead of a 75% chance to hit, now we're at a 20% chance to hit with the last attack (pre Hunt). At this point, you're ahead in round 3 (if you were hasted, you're significantly ahead in round 2, the first round after the Hunt). Against a big boss who's much higher level than you and uses a shield, you might even have a 50/50 on that first attack, which brings the chance of the third hit you didn't take to a 10% chance, and you easily exceed the value on the next round without haste. For ranged where the MAP was higher, the value of the third attack is actually lower so you make it up even sooner, particularly with range increments. For melee, if you're at a fair distance against an enemy that's also melee, you might find a round with Hunt, laying a snare or Recalling Knowledge (based on the build), and letting the enemy spend actions to advance is better than advancing and then letting it rip into you (offer potentially void if you have other melees who were going to advance anyway).
As always, thanks for the reply. As I said to other people, I inferred from the blog post that TWF reduced it to -4/-8 but stacked with the agile weapon reduction, yielding a -3/-6 total before Hunt Target. But I'm now inferring that I read too much into it.
I certainly get your point about accuracy, though: obviously, it only takes a few Hunt Target swings to make up for a lost 10-15% chance to hit attack! I have to say I'm a still a little queasy about the efficiency of what I assume is a major class ability depending on the numbers like this, but of course that's a philosophical point that shouldn't count for much given my obviously incomplete picture.
(also fwiw, in retrospect I wish the tone in the OP was a bit more guarded and diplomatic! I was honestly aiming (a) for dev elaboration like what you just provided and (b) to focus discussion on potential issues, not to whine or condemn!)
How pronounced is the difference when your first attack is a longsword, and your second/third are a short sword (or other agile weapon)?
Unless you use Hunt Target in place of your only attack in a round (which from everything we know now you never should), there'd be no difference at all, since Hunt Target both only replaces and only improves attacks with the second weapon.
Note that for the reasons of which Mark reminds us in his reply, Hunt Target may well be best with a big two-hander, since it can pay off pretty quickly if the attack you're trading in is at -10.
Since the One True Ranger of course used a bastard sword (rather than a pair of scimitars or whatever), on reflection this may be to PF2's credit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other aspect favoring short-range weapons is they added the volley tag to longbows, which made them not benefit from the new point blank stance we saw in one of the playtest games.
I feel like range specialists are likely to prefer the shorter range options, while people who need a back-up weapon for first round/non-accessible terrain issues, will choose the longer ones. The fact that they are choosing different weapons (and not only because of proficiency) seems like a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save it for the playtest guys.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would implore Paizo to change this benefit to something else that doesn't favor one ranged weapon over another. Even if you're reducing the increments to half or 1/3, it still favors short ranged weapons even if 30's is 2nd range increment for a longbow.
That's true, but I think that's okay.
Incentivizing players to attack at very long ranges far beyond where most combats happen is always a little tricky, because everyone else is standing around waiting for the enemies to get into range. And it makes battlemaps really awkward. For some groups that won't be a problem, but in general...there are reasons why the encounter ranges are really short, even though you could have a bunch of wizards casting fireball from 600+ feet away. It's just not fun for anyone else, and it's kind of a hassle to run on a tabletop. And here's the weird thing: People who are okay running those super long-distance encounters do actually get the extra benefit. It's pretty rare that most people will see that effect in designed scenarios, though.
Which basically means that I don't think it's actually providing that incentive in a meaningful way, though, if no one ever gets to use it. So what it's actually doing is removing the disincentives to use really short range weapons by reducing their penalties.
With really short range weapons, in PF1 they tend to be things like thrown weapons (curse that 10' or 20' range increment) and this gives them a huge buff. I personally think it's pretty hugely thematic to run around in the woods throwing knives or hatchets (although these themes can be problematic depending on the specific trope invoked).
How often do you see those short-ranged ranged weapons used? I don't really see them used at all. I think it's okay to reduce the ranged penalties a little. Favoring one weapon type over another isn't inherently a bad thing. And because it's just reducing a penalty, it doesn't make them more effective than the other ranged weapons, except possibly in a very narrow range band, which is only an incremental boost at best.
I don't think anyone is going to complain that their bows suck now just because their range penalty reductions come up less often.
Now I want a ranger that hunts with throwing darts.
I really like military darts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given medium spell ranges are now fixed at 120 ft, I'd be making a guess that weapon ranges will also be dropping.
Save it for the playtest guys.
If the community's already attentive to specific potential issues before the playtest, it's possible that more people will zero in on those issues during the playtest if they come up. Since Paizo tends to be more responsive to community feedback when it's loud and unified (case in point: shifter), this might induce them to fix problems they otherwise wouldn't have. Everyone here wants PF2 to be good!
I took this:
The specifics of the Hunt Target ability make the ranger excel at a variety of combat styles, especially his traditional two-weapon fighting (since you can decrease the multiple attack penalty with agile attacks to be incredibly small)to imply that the agile weapon reduction stacks with TWF, which is what my math assumed.
Well, it was already confirmed in other locations, but Mark notes it as well here:
For instance, two-weapon fighting does not reduce multiple attack penalty to -3/-6, so eliminating that assumption, decreases the chance to hit of that last attack to 35%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given medium spell ranges are now fixed at 120 ft, I'd be making a guess that weapon ranges will also be dropping.What Hunt Target should do is provide a benefit based on distance from target, irrespective of the particular weapon. It doesn't really make sense for a Ranger to get a benefit at 65 feet if using a shortbow, but not if using a longbow at that same distance. That feels really metagamish.
I mean they both already get a benefit regardless of situation (the iterative attack), and the other benefit is just "your skill with ranged shots is extended, regardless of the weapon. Therefore you can shoot further than you otherwise would with each." I don't think that comes across as metagamey, even if people can weirdly optimise it.
But then they can throw in in-universe justification, like "sure the range on these is bad but if you can hit they do waaaaaaaaaay more. Guess who's a good shot?"| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took this:
The specifics of the Hunt Target ability make the ranger excel at a variety of combat styles, especially his traditional two-weapon fighting (since you can decrease the multiple attack penalty with agile attacks to be incredibly small)to imply that the agile weapon reduction stacks with TWF, which is what my math assumed.Well, it was already confirmed in other locations, but Mark notes it as well here:
For instance, two-weapon fighting does not reduce multiple attack penalty to -3/-6, so eliminating that assumption, decreases the chance to hit of that last attack to 35%.
Yup, -3/-6 at level 1 (so third and fourth attack are close to most non-agile people's second attack) and then eventually -2/-4 at high levels is very small. Getting those last agile attack (or attacks with haste) at only a -4 is simply amazing, even -6 was pretty fantastic for my high level archer ranger in the playtest. Another great part was eventually sharing the basic Hunt Target with allies (like my party paladin) and my animal companion.
Plus any turn that I would have needed to approach to get into one range increment or take -2, I instead of moving in can Hunt Target for the same action, get benefits, and stay safer.
Another great part was eventually sharing the basic Hunt Target with allies (like my party paladin) and my animal companion.
How about some buddy archers?
I can't recall if it's mentioned how many allies you can share it with at once, but I imagine a war cry followed by a volley of arrows is a fun moment. It is in fact tempting to give this ability to NPCs or monsters at certain points.I assume Hunts don't stack with each other? Else volley rocket tag sounds like a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be good to have a "Thrill of the Hunt" ability baked in early on (sat level3) allowing you to reassign your target as a free action if you land the killing blow on your existing target.
..., and the other benefit is just "your skill with ranged shots is extended, regardless of the weapon. Therefore you can shoot further than you otherwise would with each."Why would a Hunt Target ability let you shoot farther with a weapon?
That doesn't make sense. It makes sense that I can zero in on vulnerabilities from farther out, but that should be weapon independent and be a function of the Ranger's innate accuracy or ability to identify the weaknesses.
Look, in real life, if something makes you're more accurate with one weapon at range, assuming equal proficiency, you're going to enjoy that same accuracy improvement with any weapon.
Really, range accuracy should be weapon independent. Damage is what should be modified by range.
I don't think that comes across as metagamey, even if people can weirdly optimise it."The idea that something makes you more accurate at different ranges because of the weapon is extremely metagamey. It's an attempt to make things all confer the same category of benefit irrespective of real world logic.
EDIT: Let me rephrase that. In real life, weapon's do have different accuracies, but it seems Hunt Target should be affecting the Ranger's ability to target, not the weapon's.
So basically what we need is a barbarian ranger who RAGEHUNTS and lobs things.
Now admittedly this sorta is doomed by the action economy, but that's why you give these players a returning hatchet.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why the mechanic was chosen to benefit the second and third attacks; after all, you only get them a) by standing still and b) after the combat has been going on for a while. Neither am I sure why it is designed to help only against single targets, rather than groups.
Do we really want the ranger (light armour, agile, etc) to be the class who stands still in a fight trading blows with the Big Bad?
If I were to tweak it, I'd give the bonus to every attack in a round rather than just to the iteratives. Then the ranger could reasonably a) run up to a target, b) study it, c) hit it with a bonus, and repeat the process for the next target. As well as which, I'd allow the bonus to apply somehow to groups of essentially identical targets. So it would be useful against mooks and BBEGs alike. Whether it's better to study or take the iterative attack is another question.
Which points to another problem: the maths. Like the OP pointed out, it's often just not worth bothering. So before Studying, a player needs to estimate a) what's this guy's AC? b) how long is it going to take me to kill him? And that's a bunch of maths and OOC knowledge we don't want.
And as well as all that, I like the fact that Culver Hale is an expert goblin hunter. He's famous for it. Knows lots about them. Doesn't know much about orcs, but goblins and their kin, he's your man. This Hunt business doesn't cover any of the same ground, has no style or RP potential and is just dry mechanics that comes out as complication for its own sake.
Ultimately, it's a flavourless and largely pointless +1 that may or may not arise in some situations which are more trouble than they're worth to identify.
Save it for the playtest guys.If the community's already attentive to specific potential issues before the playtest, it's possible that more people will zero in on those issues during the playtest if they come up. Since Paizo tends to be more responsive to community feedback when it's loud and unified (case in point: shifter), this might induce them to fix problems they otherwise wouldn't have. Everyone here wants PF2 to be good!
On thematics, sure. Mechanics? Possibly.
Crunching numbers? Nonsense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least we can afford to wait (like 4 weeks) for all the numbers before we insist on crunching them. If nothing else, starting with an incorrect assumption that can easily be corrected with access to the rulebook renders all subsequent analysis meaningless.
It seems like the intent is that in PF2, you should have multiple options that are good in different circumstances. That is; for choices to be meaningful some choices must be wrong.
I see this in power attack being good sometimes, raising your shield being meaningful, even how they are making resonance a unified resource that you re-spend each day (though I dislike resonance but like the first two examples)
That being said, I think that even in the best case Hunt Target is not exciting. Consider an opponent that you only hit 50% of the time. Giving up your 3rd attack only cost you 5% of your on-hit damage but gives back ~10% of your damage each turn. That's pretty solid. Still. I think that a class' signature ability should do more then bump your numbers a little. I also don't like that it forces rangers into a single type of combat style. Didn't Aragorn use a greatsword?
I also don't like that it forces rangers into a single type of combat style. Didn't Aragorn use a greatsword?
It provides the exact same reduction no matter your weapon. Though it does give an extra bonus to bows as well, the general thought seems to be that won't always be relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the intent is that in PF2, you should have multiple options that are good in different circumstances. That is; for choices to be meaningful some choices must be wrong.
I see this in power attack being good sometimes, raising your shield being meaningful, even how they are making resonance a unified resource that you re-spend each day (though I dislike resonance but like the first two examples)
That being said, I think that even in the best case Hunt Target is not exciting. Consider an opponent that you only hit 50% of the time. Giving up your 3rd attack only cost you 5% of your on-hit damage but gives back ~10% of your damage each turn. That's pretty solid. Still. I think that a class' signature ability should do more then bump your numbers a little. I also don't like that it forces rangers into a single type of combat style. Didn't Aragorn use a greatsword?
Actually, I think it is more correct to say that using Hunt Target costs 1 action to scholastically add 5% to 10% weapon damage to second iterative attacks (from improved critical chances) and 10% damage to third iterative attacks. It is up to the player to decide whether that will be worth it. I will also note that these bonuses are free in instances where the ranger has a little time to study a foe before a fight.
Also, I am pretty sure that those bonuses work the same for Great Swords as they do for bows or agile weapons. In many ways, a great sword ranger benefits more than the TWF ranger since that increase in accuracy will actually buy you more damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I addressed all these things in the OP. (fwiw I do think you were totally on point in your reply to my "wand of CLW post", though, and should've replied saying as much.)
Let's say Mr. Ranger is surprised by an adjacent enemy. On his turn, he could swing 3 times for 0-5-10 penalties, or he can spend an action, and attack twice for 0-4 (or 0-3 with Agile weaponry), thereby being more likely to hit (and crit) with his 2nd attack, and the third attack being negligible otherwise.It was buried in the "math" part of my post, but the preview blog post implies TWF also reduces your multiple attack penalties, presumably by 1. On top of agile weapons, that's 0/-3/-6 or 0/-2. That -6 isn't negligible.
Mr. Ranger is more consistent with "full attacks" than any other class due to significantly reducing penalties with his featureApart from maybe aesthetics, which is no basis for class design, the WHOLE POINT of "more consistent with full attacks" is getting more hits over time. As it stands, trading an attack to do this isn't worth it given plausible assumptions about the numbers. If you think my numbers aren't plausible, try some of your own and see if it looks different.
When "later on" means "at 19th level," then "later on" means "never."later on he can activate it freely, no actions required.
I meant negligible as in "not worth the action," but a -6 is certainly much better than a -10, and against enemies whom you know have reduced or outright low AC, even a -6 might be a worthwhile action if you just want to absolutely kill the guy.
The attack you are trading, however, is the one at -10 (or -6 with proper reductions), so trading a -10 penalty attack to have more chances to hit (or crit) with your second attack (and other follow-up attacks thereafter) is more often than not worth spending an action in place of that crude attack roll. It's not really gaining "more hits over time" if those attacks are made at horrendous penalties (which, by the way, can result in Critical Failures, and there are enemies who can trigger effects based off of that).
I will concur that the 19th level restriction is odd and not going to see much play, but considering you can confer these benefits to other allies through certain feat selections, and that PF2 APs are going to be (largely) designed to go to 20 (meaning level 19 will see some action), it makes for a solid way to boost martial buddies, and not just yourself. (I think there is a Barbarian feat which confers Rage benefits to allies as well; a shame Fighter doesn't get any of that similarly cool mojo, selfish jerk.)
I mean, cutting down up to -3 of your penalties, making multiattack options more viable, is an interesting mechanic on paper, but as I've said before, my fear is that it will now reinforce the "sit still and full attack" paradigm that PF1 was trying to get away from, and if players realize the optimal thing to do is just the same exact "garbage" that PF1 was, then people are going to be highly upset and just quit playing it (or even worse, ban Hunt Target, or change how Hunt Target works, thereby severely crippling the Ranger class).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Range increments will be a different beast this time around. Longbows will take a penalty at close range. That means archers may want to use the short bow as the go to weapon they keep maxed. Which may lead to a lot of situations where that 2nd range increment matters. (We also don't know how high the penalty Rangers ignore is.)
Also, the game is supposed to become less rocket tag based, and combats will probably last longer than the old 2-3 round average. We will see how that works in practice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is you're taking an iconic ability--Favored Enemy--and then swapping it for an ability that now favors a specific category of weapons. That doesn't make sense unless everyone has to use that category of weapon.
What Hunt Target should do is provide a benefit based on distance from target, irrespective of the particular weapon. It doesn't really make sense for a Ranger to get a benefit at 65 feet if using a shortbow, but not if using a longbow at that same distance. That feels really metagamish.
What's really interesting to me is that you're not complaining that Hunt Target helps with both melee and ranged in vastly different ways where melee likely gets more consistently useful help, just that some ranged weapons get more benefit than others.
I'm definitely in the camp that favored enemy was a too-situational ability that was either useless or required the campaign to fit some specific mold. Being good at picking the right enemy was the most "metagamish" option, I think. It was flavorful, but to get much the mechanics required campaign alignment.
So you're complaining that an "iconic ability" that specifically favored which enemy you were or were not fighting is being replaced with a much more flexible ability that might, sometimes, favor some weapons over others by providing a reduction in penalties to some "short" range weapons. (Note that I don't think of the shortbow range of 60' as especially short, since as everyone noted it doesn't come up much, compared to the range increments thrown weapons or slings.)
Note that the longbow user isn't losing anything. They're not actually getting any lower numbers by always being in range one. You're upset that other weapons are less bad in that situation, and might even be brought up to the same number. Although you're not worried about thrown weapons because of ammo, so you appear to care about the shortbow.
If I understand this, then you're primarily upset about shortbows not having a range penalty at some narrow range of something like 60-100' (PF1 bow numbers, non-composite) because the longbow users don't get any benefit at that range and that feels bad. Even though they'll probably have a larger damage die. And even though they're better in the 100-200' range than before.
Is that right? That just seems like a pretty minor quibble.
It is worth considering the math to the ability, but I think maybe your complaint is better phrased as the benefit is too insignificant for ranged users generally? It's hard to say that without actually seeing what weapons ranges look like now, but it might well be true. I think it's clear the designers have gone really far out of their way to avoid granting a base +1 to the ranger's best attack in any situation. You only benefit in a penalty reduction, either in subsequent attacks (for melee) or in distance (for ranged).
That seems really deliberate. "Grants +1 to attacks against that target" is so few words, there's no way it wasn't considered. If they described Hunt Target as "reducing penalties to help take down tough targets" would people understand the trade-offs better?
How much of it is just loss aversion since it's replacing an "iconic ability"? How much is the perception that it's just underpowered?
I also don't like that it forces rangers into a single type of combat style. Didn't Aragorn use a greatsword?It provides the exact same reduction no matter your weapon. Though it does give an extra bonus to bows as well, the general thought seems to be that won't always be relevant.
The great-sword user likely wants power attack though. It feels better in the places hunt target is good in. That is when you have a hard time hitting with your first attack.
I will also note that these bonuses are free in instances where the ranger has a little time to study a foe before a fight.You only get a benefit if you get a second attack. It's a little odd that this Hunt Target only works if you get a second attack in, which doesn't actually happen when you hunt. You'd think a Hunt Target ability would be more thematically accurate if most of the benefit was on the first attack.
I think that is a fair criticism and I see how you could find that unsatisfying.
Maybe a damage bonus would be a good alternative? Like: perhaps you gain one or two extra damage die on your first attack each round. Or perhaps you can roll your damage twice and take the higher result against your Hunted Target.