ranger hunt target analysis


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
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.

It still lets you take your second iterative attack at a -4 in that instance or maybe even distorts the math such that making iterative attacks is going to be preferable to power attack in some situations (since power attack in general less than doubles your weapon damage while landing two attacks exactly doubles it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious what was wrong with the PF1 studied target that added bonuses, which is functionally the same as reducing penalties except easier to keep track of / less likely to be screwed up, and also benefits the first attack... Definitely less complicated than and more useful than the version they came up with here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'm curious what was wrong with the PF1 studied target that added bonuses, which is functionally the same as reducing penalties except easier to keep track of / less likely to be screwed up, and also benefits the first attack... Definitely less complicated than and more useful than the version they came up with here.

I think the game in general is trying to limit stacked bonuses. A +1 can matter quite a lot in PF2E's math and you would essentially end up in a situation where every other class would fall behind or you would potentially have to not give the ranger anything else interesting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, I appreciate the response. Second, a lot of this is based on what ranges are now. If the longbow is suddenly not even viable indoors, then that changes/invalidates some of my concern.

RicoTheBold wrote:
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 not seeing that melee gets more consistent useful help. If the benefit applies to all second and third attacks, then I'd argue ranged attacks are getting more benefit, though it sounds like attack penalties are higher for ranged, so ranged is just gong to be far less effective. If so, that has nothing to do with HT.

Quote:
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.

I am not necessarily a fan of 3.5 FE. But I found the bonuses and benefits to be substantive and meaningful. Mainly, as alluded to in the blog, I chose Humans for PFS.

As I see it, is that FE, in a homebrew, creates an an opportunity for the GM to promote the Ranger. If I am running a themed campaign, I would 100% tell the player ahead of time, what the region is most likely to contain. Allowing the player to choose a an enemy that's common in the setting is no more metagamiing than allowing them to pick languages or elemental spells based on the setting. If I'm the GM, I'm going to make it a point to include the Ranger's FE, just as I would include locked doors or gates to promote the Rogue, or lots of mooks to promote the Fighter's cleave. If the setting were to change, I would allow the Ranger an IC opportunity to swap her FE.

What I think GMs overlook is FE opened the door to empower Rangers.

In PFS, I don't feel underpowered if I don't encounter FEs. When I do encounter them, I feel like it's a pay day. So I go from a neutral position to a net positive. Conversely, I have an Investigator with Studied Combat and I find the ability tedious. There's a lot of overhead trying to manage the ability and use it, especially with the action tax...that Hunt Target also has. The constant tax of a move action at the start of every combat is really annoying for Studied Combat, imo. It doesn't feel free, like FE, it feels like I'm having to make a trade-off every combat. Even though I make a trade with FE, I've made it and I move on. I don't have to keep revisiting that decision every single fight, every single target.

I also agree with Mudfoot. FE allowed me to be an expert at something. It had a thematic feel. Favored Terrain does the same thing.

Quote:
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

I didn't need FE to be flexible. If I had wanted that, I would have played a Slayer. So you're solving a problem I didn't have. I liked FE because it made me standout when it was in play..

Quote:
that might, sometimes, favor some weapons over others by providing a reduction in penalties to some "short" range weapons.

I think you're missing the point. What thing that is a major turn off in these games is when a feat is co-opted to accomplish some ancillary goal of the designers and they are not upfront about it. Turning FE into some way to backdoor balance weapons is disingenuous. The very fact that it's tied to this metagame concept of 2nd range increment is even more painful. IC, characters have no concept of range increment for a weapon. Shooting a bow from long range is less accurate because I am less accurate, not because the weapon is less accurate (guns being an exception).

Quote:
Note that the longbow user isn't losing anything

Comparatively, that's false. If every one else in the world grows an inch and I stay the same height, I'm effectively an inch shorter. Shortbows/crossbows are getting their range increased because of a feat that is supposed to be about hunting. If the game makes it impractical to obtain the same benefit from a longbow, than that's a backdoor nerf and let's not pretend the devs doesn't know what's going on.

Quote:
Although you're not worried about thrown weapons because of ammo, so you appear to care about the shortbow.

It has nothing to do with being "worried" it's about Paizo imposing preferred play style by its intentional choice in wording benefits. And the shortbow is just the primary example, not the only one.

Quote:
If I understand this, then you're primarily upset about shortbows not having a range penalty at some narrow range

No. I'm annoyed at Paizo using an iconic class ability as vehicle for weapon balancing. It's even worse if that isn't their goal and they are just ignoring the implication of this change in the context of the game.

Why? Why not just fix the benefit based on distance from target? I suspect it's because they don't have an elegant way to implement this. They don't want to convey a "bonus" but they want to convey a benefit. So eliminating a penalty keeps the weapon effective at longer ranges without making it better at close range. But if that mechanic means the benefit is asymmetric, then they need to redo it.

Quote:
Is that right? That just seems like a pretty minor quibble.

Everything in a fantasy game is a "minor quibble." But when these changes undermine what the class is about for a player, then the player gets turned off and Paizo losses money. For me, the Ranger is the heart and sole of why I played D&D/3.5/Pathfinder. It's the reason I couldn't stand D&D 2.0 So I've got more at stake with this class than any other.

Quote:
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'm actually more worried that Hunt Target is mechanically too good and all these people who had no love for the Ranger, suddenly flock to it because of the mechanics.

Based on the blog, the Ranger seems to have lost a lot in the feel of the class. I feel like Mark and Co. want the Ranger to be a Slayer. I am less concerned with the numbers and more concerned with the feel of the class. The Ranger is not a hunter, it's a tracker. IMO, the class had more appeal as a thinker than a forest grubber or some big game hunter. And I really really don't want to see snares become a mainstay for this class. Ugh.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Crunching numbers is part of what led to the Shifter changes though, so.... who knows. Maybe it'll be a good class soon. :)

Give it a few more years and it might shape up into a great class... :P


graystone wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Crunching numbers is part of what led to the Shifter changes though, so.... who knows. Maybe it'll be a good class soon. :)
Give it a few more years and it might shape up into a great class... :P

PF2's class design might benefit the Shifter greatly since now they have to give us choices of class features every other level, so if we're counting "your claws do more damage" as a class feature granted on level up" we can only fill the odd levels with that- the even levels will still be "Shifter Feats."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Crunching numbers is part of what led to the Shifter changes though, so.... who knows. Maybe it'll be a good class soon. :)
Give it a few more years and it might shape up into a great class... :P
PF2's class design might benefit the Shifter greatly since now they have to give us choices of class features every other level, so if we're counting "your claws do more damage" as a class feature granted on level up" we can only fill the odd levels with that- the even levels will still be "Shifter Feats."

On the shifter tangent, Adaptive shifter from Distant Realms is awesome and everything the shifter should have been on release.


Knight Magenta wrote:
Didn't Aragorn use a greatsword?

As I jokingly implied in an earlier post, I'd say Andúril was a bastard sword. On the one hand, he used it with a shield at Helm's Deep. On the other hand, it was the reforged version of a sword originally used by someone between seven and eight feet tall, depending on where you look.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
If I am running a themed campaign, I would 100% tell the player ahead of time, what the region is most likely to contain. Allowing the player to choose a an enemy that's common in the setting is no more metagamiing than allowing them to pick languages or elemental spells based on the setting.

Yeah, okay, we disagree about what feels like metagaming here, and for me I think the difference is that it's an ability with strong thematic ties that makes it feel like those themes have to serve a backdoor to the campaign meta. I believe your viewpoint/opinion are valid and fine.

N N 959 wrote:
RicotheBold wrote:
Note that the longbow user isn't losing anything
Comparatively, that's false. If every one else in the world grows an inch and I stay the same height, I'm effectively an inch shorter. Shortbows/crossbows are getting their range increased because of a feat that is supposed to be about hunting. If the game makes it impractical to obtain the same benefit from a longbow, than that's a backdoor nerf and let's not pretend the devs doesn't know what's going on.

What if only people who are at least one inch shorter than you grown an inch taller? Does that in any way affect your height relative to anything other than just those exact people? Just because someone else gets something doesn't mean you lost something. I'm genuinely concerned about this because it's a really negative philosophy, and it affects more than just game design. Envy is toxic, and I really hope that's not how you go through life.

Game balance has to walk a tight line, and get everything into an "acceptable range" whether it's on the high or low end of that range. It's okay for things to have different power levels, but if something is outside the acceptable range, it needs to be powered up or powered down. The designers clearly thought a slight boost to the less reliable attacks the Ranger had access to was the appropriate power boost. That in no way reduces the power of the most reliable attacks.

N N 959 wrote:

What I think GMs overlook is FE opened the door to empower Rangers.

In PFS, I don't feel underpowered if I don't encounter FEs. When I do encounter them, I feel like it's a pay day. So I go from a neutral position to a net positive.

Why do you think you feel underpowered when you don't encounter 2nd range increments? I would have expected them to feel pretty similarly. One of the reasons I haven't liked rangers much is specifically that their favored enemy/terrain abilities were either available or not, and the player had little say in it (unless hand-fed options by the GM to keep them from being useless).

As a GM, I'd still rather target something else they can do to make rangers feel cool than have to shoehorn in a dragon or a giant or an aberration where it's not appropriate. And if no one picks these as favored enemies because they come up too infrequently, well, they're the first ones I'd want as a player for flavor.

N N 959 wrote:

Everything in a fantasy game is a "minor quibble." But when these changes undermine what the class is about for a player, then the player gets turned off and Paizo losses money. For me, the Ranger is the heart and sole of why I played D&D/3.5/Pathfinder. It's the reason I couldn't stand D&D 2.0 So I've got more at stake with this class than any other.

I meant that it was an edge case that seems likely to be small in magnitude and frequency of occurence, not that you're not entitled to opinions about fantasy games. I hope they get the feel of the Ranger right for you and others who feel the same way.

It's also funny you mention the snares, because I've had players want to build traps and whatnot and be frustrated that wasn't a viable option. No one has wanted to emphasize the tracking elements in my games. I think there's room for both in the class, and it's at least a new schtick that's available as an option. The people who have brought up Horizon: Zero Dawn as an example definitely make that approach sound like a cool option to me.

Personally I'm more of a Druid guy, and I'm pretty sure they're getting the thick end of the nerf bat, which is probably fair. I don't think it's likely that PF2 druids will be able to be able to be a "full" wild shaper and a "full" animal companion-haver, which seems like a bummer. I always liked how druids seemed to have all the options, but the class feat system will probably cost them some flexibility if they want each class feature to be as good as it can be. They at least seem like they'll still have the same thematic feel.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the math I've looked at based on level appropriate opponents make Hunt Target look pretty good mechanically. We'll need a look at the full Class and the Class Feats available to say for sure, of course.

RicoTheBold wrote:
I don't think it's likely that PF2 druids will be able to be able to be a "full" wild shaper and a "full" animal companion-haver, which seems like a bummer. I always liked how druids seemed to have all the options, but the class feat system will probably cost them some flexibility if they want each class feature to be as good as it can be. They at least seem like they'll still have the same thematic feel.

I think this might depend on what you mean by 'full'. It sounds to me like both Wild Shape and Animal Companion can be focused on more than the PF1 Druid did, but I suspect you can wind up with PF1 level Wild Shaping and PF1 level Animal Companion (possibly with fewer actions) if you want, you just won't be as good at either as Druids who monofocus on one of them.


Yeah I don't expect to see the shifter come back in class form I think we will more then likely see it as an archetype for DROOD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I don't expect to see the shifter come back in class form I think we will more then likely see it as an archetype for DROOD.

It'd be a hell of an archetype that got rid of 9 levels of casting. Wouldn't starting from a non caster like the ranger or monk be easier?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It sounds to me like both Wild Shape and Animal Companion can be focused on more than the PF1 Druid did, but I suspect you can wind up with PF1 level Wild Shaping and PF1 level Animal Companion (possibly with fewer actions) if you want, you just won't be as good at either as Druids who monofocus on one of them.

I think this is the PF2 class design in a nutshell, but especially for classes like the Druid and Cleric that had a bunch of separate features. I also think it's super cool that this approach allows for things like wild shape at level one.

It doesn't mean that I won't wish I could go down two paths at the same time without compromising both. With archetypes taking up class feats, that feeling will probably get worse down the road. I can imagine a future where someone wants, for instance, to have a pirate druid with a giant squid as an animal companion, and who can still wild shape for combat, but they're a few class feats short of any of those abilities coexisting early, or scaling well to high levels.

In PF1, though, the feature set made druid archetypes almost always give up something like the nature bond or wild shape without getting something as powerful/flexible back. Swapping class feats seems like a better approach there, even if it always leaves me wanting more class feats.

By contrast, I'd want every archetype to swap out ranger spellcasting or favored enemy, because they felt too watered down and/or situational anyway. A ranger was basically a fighter with a pet to me (especially when they published the feat to bring the effective druid level up for animal companions), and even there the companion selection was more limited.


RicoTheBold wrote:


Yeah, okay, we disagree about what feels like metagaming here, and for me I think the difference is that it's an ability with strong thematic ties that makes it feel like those themes have to serve a backdoor to the campaign meta.

Not sure I understand. If I'm running a campaign and someone wants to play a Ranger, it would seem appropriate for a Ranger from that area to have a Favored Enemy associated with that region.

Quote:
Envy is toxic, and I really hope that's not how you go through life.

lol. Thanks for the concern, but I think you're missing the point. If they want to boost certain weapons or discourage certain play styles, then be upfront about it. Don't back door it on the players by tying it into a class feature.

Quote:
Game balance has to walk a tight line, and get everything into an "acceptable range" whether it's on the high or low end of that range.

Nothing I'm talking about has to do with power levels, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote:
Why do you think you feel underpowered when you don't encounter 2nd range increments?

Don't understand this question as it seems to be rhetorical.

Quote:
One of the reasons I haven't liked rangers much is specifically that their favored enemy/terrain abilities were either available or not, and the player had little say in it (unless hand-fed options by the GM to keep them from being useless).

Everything in the game is contrived. All the classes require the GM/scenario to provide a context for the powers to be useful. A Paladin can't Smite Evil if all of the NPCS are neutral.

Quote:
And if no one picks these as favored enemies because they come up too infrequently, well, they're the first ones I'd want as a player for flavor.

So choosing a FE that you've never encountered makes more sense? The FE feat is specifically designed to assist the ranger against campaign common encounters. Just like Favored Terrain. Do you choose an elemental plane that you've never been to for your Favored Terrain just to add flavor? If so, I can totally see why you'd find those feats to be unsatisfying.

Quote:
I meant that it was an edge case that seems likely to be small in magnitude and frequency of occurence

If my weapon is a longbow with a range increment of 100ft, I'd never get the benefit of the 2nd range increment in PFS. Or maybe once in 12 levels of play. If I'm using a blow dart, then I'm probably getting it every encounter. That's not what Hunt Target should be doing. Create a a class feat that conveys that ability so someone can choose it at the cost of something else, don't stick it on the class feat that everyone has to take. I would have the same reaction if HT only applied if you only fought with two weapons.

Quote:
It's also funny you mention the snares, because I've had players want to build traps and whatnot and be frustrated that wasn't a viable option.

First off, if players want to do that, more power to them. I don't want to see it become some core component of a Ranger and I especially don't want to see Ranger's being balanced around it. Fortunately, it doesn't appear to be specific to Rangers, so I'm less concerned about it.

Second, in all my years of PFS play, I don't see setting traps as a viable concept for explorers. Sure, it makes a lot of sense to have NPC rangers setting traps/snares in areas they patrol, so I can see the need to flesh out the rules.

Quote:
No one has wanted to emphasize the tracking elements in my games.

Of course not because Paizo has made it essentially worthless. I haven't seen a single PFS scenario actually expect a party to track anything. NOTHING. I played a PFS scenario where a group of undead owlbears kidnapped someone and ran off with them through the forest and there was no in-game option to track them. I had to facepalm. Paizo could allow Track to do so much more than simply follow tracks.

Quote:
I don't think it's likely that PF2 druids will be able to be able to be a "full" wild shaper and a "full" animal companion-haver

You forgot full spell caster on top of that. Yeah, Druids were pretty ridiculous in 1e.

Quote:
I always liked how druids seemed to have all the options

The problem isn't that the class has option, it's that the options are able to completely supplant martials at fighting.

We'll see how it turns out. If Paizo ruins the Ranger, my life will go on. I can always play 1e or just move on to other hobbies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I don't expect to see the shifter come back in class form I think we will more then likely see it as an archetype for DROOD.
It'd be a hell of an archetype that got rid of 9 levels of casting. Wouldn't starting from a non caster like the ranger or monk be easier?

Hmm maybe. I guess you could do it as a general one for everyone but the druid. Or rather all the martial classes anyways. Heh paladin can only shift into "noble" forms like eagles and lions. bugs and snakes are right out...


Captain Morgan wrote:

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.

We know that the short bow is still 60 feet from Jason's Barbarian Twitch Stream. What the increments are after 60 feet we don't know. But I'm also interested if Hunt Target's range increments will work reversely? As in, the Long bow is penalized the closer the enemy gets, perhaps this can be ignored by Hunt Target? It's a long shot, but who knows... (pun intended)

PS- Otherwise what Ranger will buy in to a magical Long Bow if he/she is penalized for shooting an enemy close up? Just get a Short Bow and use Hunt Target...


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

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.

We know that the short bow is still 60 feet from Jason's Barbarian Twitch Stream. What the increments are after 60 feet we don't know. But I'm also interested if Hunt Target's range increments will work reversely? As in, the Long bow is penalized the closer the enemy gets, perhaps this can be ignored by Hunt Target? It's a long shot, but who knows... (pun intended)

Well, we know the longbow has the volley trait, which gives it a penalty if the enemy's too close. Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact range off the top of my head.


Cyouni wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

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.

We know that the short bow is still 60 feet from Jason's Barbarian Twitch Stream. What the increments are after 60 feet we don't know. But I'm also interested if Hunt Target's range increments will work reversely? As in, the Long bow is penalized the closer the enemy gets, perhaps this can be ignored by Hunt Target? It's a long shot, but who knows... (pun intended)
Well, we know the longbow has the volley trait, which gives it a penalty if the enemy's too close. Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact range off the top of my head.

I'm guessing it'll be 100 feet as well. (since the short bow range transferred over) But again, what's the point of a spending your hard earned gold on a Long Bow? More often than not combat is close range, and we also learned that Point Blank Shot is in the Playtest. (at least a Fighter Stance) As far as it seems, the Short Bow is the new Long Bow of PF1.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

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.

We know that the short bow is still 60 feet from Jason's Barbarian Twitch Stream. What the increments are after 60 feet we don't know. But I'm also interested if Hunt Target's range increments will work reversely? As in, the Long bow is penalized the closer the enemy gets, perhaps this can be ignored by Hunt Target? It's a long shot, but who knows... (pun intended)
Well, we know the longbow has the volley trait, which gives it a penalty if the enemy's too close. Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact range off the top of my head.
I'm guessing it'll be 100 feet as well. (since the short bow range transferred over) But again, what's the point of a spending your hard earned gold on a Long Bow? More often than not combat is close range, and we also learned that Point Blank Shot is in the Playtest. (at least a Fighter Stance) As far as it seems, the Short Bow is the new Long Bow of PF1.

Higher damage dice would be a very good reason.

As for volley, my mind wants to say the minimum range before penalties is either 30 ft or 50 ft.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:


It's tough for us to adequately debate this without all the information. However I see some areas of concern:

1) In PFS 1e, most combats don't last more than 2-3 rounds. This means that buffing (which is what Hunt Target essentially is) are often not worth the action cost. I know this as my Rangers use Gravity Bow and Lead Blades. The only thing that keeps those spells viable is that I can frequently cast them when I suspect a combat is coming and avoid the action cost.

2) Your response seems to assume that the Ranger won't have anything else to do for all three actions after using Hunt Target. This means that any other actions or abilities that require actions, are going to marginalize Hunt Target. If it takes 2-3 rounds to "catch-up" then if I do anything else but attack, I'm unlikely to catch-up before the creature dies.

3) Going back to 1, its been my experience that martial players don't want to spend actions buffing when they can be attacking. Requiring a move action for every new target seems to be a significant psychological penalty.

4) Because the benefit is on the second attack, Hunt Target becomes worthless if you don't get a second attack for some reason. This makes it worthless for a Vital Strike type of strategy. It also, imo, runs counter the idea of a Ranger being mobile. This ability, essentially compels a Ranger to plop himself down next to an enemy and stay there. That feels contrary to the class and its restriction to medium and light armors.

This feat feels more like it comes from the thought process of looking for something that might work mechanically i.e. bonus on second attack, rather than how it plays into the concept of the Ranger as a whole. Seems like this would be better for a Rage substitute than a Favored Enemy substitute.

N N 959 wrote:


1) Six years in PFS and there's no adventure I've played in that requires us to track anyone, let alone someone we see setting something on fire or leaving the scene. Never had to track any creature to its lair where we actually had to use Survival. So while that may sound legit on the surface, tracking is not a thing in PFS that anyone does.

The game is not PFS, it is PF2.

You say that an ability can be useless in PFS because the game is usually played in a specific way.
Ok, I trust you on that, but there is plenty of people that play different games that are less restricted than PFS.

I recall one instance where a player killed a nightmare at 1200' with a single arrow-shot (he did get a critical hit). The boss-like enemy was riding it in the air and was killed in the fall.
Very specific instance, but I had plenty of fight with dragons using flyby attack and moving hundreds of feet away before returning to use their breath weapon again, enemies fleeing at high speed and being downed by a long-range shot instead of returning later, fully healed, ambushes where the archers where in a safe spots more than 100' away, castle sieges and so on.

"In PFS 1e, most combats don't last more than 2-3 rounds." Again, not anyone plays PFS only. When I am managing an enemy, he retreats and tries to minimize damage. He wants to live, he isn't a do or die single shot adversary. Plus, it seems that one of the goals of PF2 is to make the combat last more rounds while making it faster to play.

"Your response seems to assume that the Ranger won't have anything else to do for all three actions after using Hunt Target" Actually, Mark reply seems to imply that the Ranger could use those actions for other things besides attacking.

"Going back to 1, its been my experience that martial players don't want to spend actions buffing when they can be attacking. Requiring a move action for every new target seems to be a significant psychological penalty." So essentially, if buffing doesn't give a 0 cost benefit, you wouldn't use it? Remember that the next time to ask a spellcaster to haste you. For him, it gives a small benefit.

"Because the benefit is on the second attack, Hunt Target becomes worthless if you don't get a second attack for some reason." If last until you switch targets. As already said, you can use it when hearing an enemy and keep it on for days, if needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
As far as it seems, the Short Bow is the new Long Bow of PF1.

And the little people did rejoice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
As far as it seems, the Short Bow is the new Long Bow of PF1.
And the little people did rejoice.

Yay!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


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.

Can you elaborate on what distances/weapons you were fighting at/with and how often you found yourself in the 2nd range increment?

I ask because if the Longbow's range is still 100ft, then you essentially have to move into the 1st range increment to even use Hunt Target.

That is a good point and finally make sense of your previous posts. Maybe the next time start from here and not with a "no one use bow at range as I never use them" argument.

As already said: enemies fleeing, using fly by attacks while having a high speed, some Beeg hunted the previous hour/day/week and still being the target appears. There are possibilities.

Aboust the "if something improve accuracy with a ranged weapon, it improve accuracy with all ranged weapons", it is not true. We aren't speaking of firearms with a consistent performance, we are speaking of bows, crossbows, slings and similar weapons. I am not an expert, but I know that with bows you aim lower than the espected impact point if the target is near, higher if far, crossbow have a more flat traiectory, no idea of slings work, probably a parabola at long range and a flat traiectory at short range.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
All the math I've looked at based on level appropriate opponents make Hunt Target look pretty good mechanically. We'll need a look at the full Class and the Class Feats available to say for sure, of course.

There's a huge gap in the analysis that has to do with anything that reduces or eliminates attacks, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Also, my main issue is less about the numbers and more about the play style. FE did not force you to fight in any specific way to gain the benefit. Hunt Target does. I would much rather Hunt Target work on the 1st attack than on two others I may never take. This second and third round benefit does not feel more Rangerish and it feels decidedly less like a hunting feat. Hunting is about taking something down with the first shot, not the second or third. It honestly smacks of someone coming up with a concept and then sticking the Ranger with it, regardless.

Really, this feat should be something for the Fighter class and renamed to Attrition - you wear your target down with repeated focus attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But I hated favored enemy. It was igther really good or useless depending on how you selected your FE so you had to igther know the AP really well or ask the DM to give you his best guess for it. If you played with a DM that did random encounters you could go games without using your primary class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
But I hated favored enemy. It was igther really good or useless depending on how you selected your FE so you had to igther know the AP really well or ask the DM to give you his best guess for it. If you played with a DM that did random encounters you could go games without using your primary class feature.

As a GM I had a player pick Ranger ONCE. It was when I was running Wrath of the Righteous. It was 100% a power game move. I agree that FE was too situational. The idea that this is such a "flavorful" class feature is belied by the fact that, yesterday I was a mook fighting Giants/dragons/demons etc., but since I leveled up today I get a +5 to hit and damage.

As someone mentioned up thread, there is a concerted effort to avoid the "this is always the best choice." If Hunt Target was turned into a flat +1 to all attacks, you would have a million Range 1/Other Class XX running around. Because that +1 is worth a level of proficiency, that means the Ranger hits as often at the Fighter, but is also good at all the Ranger stuff. Power Attack was always the best option in P1. ALWAYS. Every melee fighter took PA as early as possible and always used it, every round every swing. It was just that much better than every other option. P2 they don't want that. Does that mean that some abilities aren't as awesome as they could be, you bet. Also remember that this is a level 1 ability. It will get better and more flexible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
But I hated favored enemy. It was igther really good or useless depending on how you selected your FE so you had to igther know the AP really well or ask the DM to give you his best guess for it. If you played with a DM that did random encounters you could go games without using your primary class feature.

If the problem was frequency, then that's fixable. Combine categories or let players choose several. But I honestly suspect that most of the people that come on the forums and complain about FE are people who did not actually play the ranger.

I'm not going to pretend the FE is the best thing out there, but Hunt Target is not the answer.

jb200 wrote:
If Hunt Target was turned into a flat +1 to all attacks, you would have a million Range 1/Other Class XX running around.

You mean like Sneak Attack? Why is that Rangers are the only class stuck with a class defining feat that mathematically will be detrimental some portion of the time? A Fighter's extra feat or weapon mastery doesn't require a move action and then only work if you get a 2nd or 3rd attack. So you think Studied Strike will be nerfed to only work on 2nd and 3rd attacks?

It's not even about the math, it's the fact that the implementation is incongruous with actual hunting and comes out of left field. This combat mechanic could have been tacked onto a Monk or a Fighter and no one would have thought it was better suited for the Ranger.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't equate rangers with hunting. They do hunt yes, but the combat style I associate with them is fast and accurate. That is what is captured by the Hunt Target bonuses.

Also, I don't see Hunt Target as replacing Favored Enemy. It provides tracking and perception bonuses, sure. But, it is more implementing ranger combat styles. A favored enemy mechanic is not great in all campaigns and is best left as an option with some of the interesting expanded mechanics being discussed in the ranger thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:


As someone mentioned up thread, there is a concerted effort to avoid the "this is always the best choice." If Hunt Target was turned into a flat +1 to all attacks, you would have a million Range 1/Other Class XX running around.

I know it's a sacred cow but I do hope PF2E does away with level-based multiclassing, and handles it more like an archetype.


KingOfAnything wrote:
I don't equate rangers with hunting. They do hunt yes, but the combat style I associate with them is fast and accurate. That is what is captured by the Hunt Target bonuses.

If the Ranger uses one action to move, the other to invoke HT and the creature is dead before the 2nd round, I don't see how that Ranger is any more accurate because of HT?

As an archery Ranger, I would frequently shoot at several different targets depending on whether my first arrow killed, or I was using specialty arrows to impose status effects. HT doesn't make this any better.

I fail to see how this ability creates any concept of speed. On the contrary, it requires that a Ranger give up its mobility.

KoA wrote:
Also, I don't see Hunt Target as replacing Favored Enemy.

Perhaps then you can explain to me how the blog seems to specifically talk about replacing Favored Enemy?

Blog wrote:

In Pathfinder First Edition, you picked creature types or subtypes that you were skilled at hunting. There are few things more frustrating than playing a ranger who rarely—or worst of all, never—encounters their favored enemies. It also led to some players who tended to play in more human-centric campaigns picking the human subtype, even if their backgrounds may have pointed to better choices for favored enemies.

This time we made the ranger hunting ability a bit more flexible, based on some popular ideas from the guide archetype and the slayer's studied target. At 1st level, rangers gain the Hunt Target feature.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I don't equate rangers with hunting. They do hunt yes, but the combat style I associate with them is fast and accurate. That is what is captured by the Hunt Target bonuses.

If the Ranger uses one action to move, the other to invoke HT and the creature is dead before the 2nd round, I don't see how that Ranger is any more accurate because fo HT?

As an archery Ranger, I would frequently shoot at several different targets depending if my first arrow killed, or I was using specialty arrows to impose status effects. HT doesn't make this any better.

I fail to see how this ability creates an concept of speed. On the contrary, it requires that a Ranger give up its mobility.

Monk is the mobility class. Rangers attack quickly. That's what the agile property represents and rangers get to treat any weapon as agile. With a weapon that is already agile, they get three attacks at about the same accuracy other characters get two. Fast, focused and accurate.

Quote:
KoA wrote:
Also, I don't see Hunt Target as replacing Favored Enemy.

Perhaps then you can explain to me how the blog seems to specifically talk about replacing Favored Enemy?

Blog wrote:

In Pathfinder First Edition, you picked creature types or subtypes that you were skilled at hunting. There are few things more frustrating than playing a ranger who rarely—or worst of all, never—encounters their favored enemies. It also led to some players who tended to play in more human-centric campaigns picking the human subtype, even if their backgrounds may have pointed to better choices for favored enemies.

This time we made the ranger hunting ability a bit more flexible, based on some popular ideas from the guide archetype and the slayer's studied target. At 1st level, rangers gain the Hunt Target feature.

Yes, I know the blog set it up as a replacement. I can see the conceptual connection between favored enemy and studied target. But mechanically, it is supporting the combat style at least as much as anything like favored enemy. Blame the conversational blog tone for trying to set up Hunt Target in the context of a ranger as a hunter of their foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

If the problem was frequency, then that's fixable. Combine categories or let players choose several. But I honestly suspect that most of the people that come on the forums and complain about FE are people who did not actually play the ranger.

I'm not going to pretend the FE is the best thing out there, but Hunt Target is not the answer.

So people that do not agree with you never played the class. What a pile of... let's not go there but it's a bunch of hooey. I've played lots of rangers over the years and I always tries to trade off FE/FT because it was so fiddly. I wasn't the one using any skill to get a bonus, it was left to the whim of the DM to toss me a bone or I games the system and picked popular ones even if they didn't fit the character.

SO I'm very happy both features got taken out back and shot [now of alignment and a few other sacred cows could follow...]. And IMO, Hunt Target works and fits the class fine. It gives advantages to every fighting style and allows YOU to target what you hate [skilled at fighting, ect] not the feature. So, for me, yes Hunt Target IS the answer.

N N 959 wrote:
Why is that Rangers are the only class stuck with a class defining feat that mathematically will be detrimental some portion of the time? A Fighter's extra feat or weapon mastery doesn't require a move action and then only work if you get a 2nd or 3rd attack.

Because they aren't? What in the feature makes you think you are REQUIRED to use it on every target in every fight? If you every run into a situation where it actually DOES make things mechanically worse, don't use it. Simple. You seem to want a sniper skill: cool but that's not a hunting skill.

N N 959 wrote:
It's not even about the math, it's the fact that the implementation is incongruous with actual hunting and comes out of left field.

You are stuck on a single type of hunting: sniping. There are plenty of other methods that work without issue. For instance, there is driving the animal into a trap/pit, wounding it and letting it weaken from blood loss, poisoning with blow darts, ect. There is more to hunting than the 'big game hunter' with the elephant gun sniping at creatures.


KingOfAnything wrote:


Monk is the mobility class. Rangers attack quickly. That's what the agile property represents and rangers get to treat any weapon as agile. With a weapon that is already agile, they get three attacks at about the same accuracy other characters get two. Fast, focused and accurate.

Okay, a ranger treating weapon as agile does have more of a flavor of fast attacks. HT doesn't make you any faster or attack more quickly. In fact, it slows down your attacking as you switch targets and have to spend an action to benefit from it.

Quote:
Blame the conversational blog tone for trying to set up Hunt Target in the context of a ranger as a hunter of their foes.

It isn't the conversational tone, it's the fact that the blog says this:

Blog wrote:
First and foremost, the ranger is a hunter.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
SO I'm very happy both features got taken out back and shot [now of alignment and a few other sacred cows could follow...].

Alignment's still around, but aside from Paladins, Clerics of a specific God, and maybe Druids Alignment restrictions at least are gone (something I very much approve of). So that's nice.

graystone wrote:
You are stuck on a single type of hunting: sniping. There are plenty of other methods that work without issue. For instance, there is driving the animal into a trap/pit, wounding it and letting it weaken from blood loss, poisoning with blow darts, ect. There is more to hunting than the 'big game hunter' with the elephant gun sniping at creatures.

Also, from how Mark described it, there's a very 'sniper' style Ranger build available focusing on one big hit with a crossbow and mobility options. That sounds like it mimics the Big Game Hunter thing pretty much dead-on.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alignment

I'm happy to see the direction it's going [less impact]. I just wish they'd go the rest of the way and chop of that vestigial part of the system. To each their own though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Also, from how Mark described it, there's a very 'sniper' style Ranger build available focusing on one big hit with a crossbow and mobility options. That sounds like it mimics the Big Game Hunter thing pretty much dead-on.

Yes, I'm looking forward to checking out the crossbow rules. It'd be nice to see it stand in the same light as the bows. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was wondering when you'd come out and go straight at me.

graystone wrote:
So people that do not agree with you never played the class. What a pile of... let's not go there but it's a bunch of hooey.

Your totally twisting my comment. A large percentage of people complaining about FE on these forums are also making it clear they don't even play Rangers or they are talking about someone in their campaign playing one. Just like tons of people who complain about spells don't play rangers past level 4, if even 2.

Quote:
I've played lots of rangers over the years and I always tries to trade off FE/FT because it was so fiddly. I wasn't the one using any skill to get a bonus, it was left to the whim of the DM to toss me a bone or I games the system and picked popular ones even if they didn't fit the character.

Then your GM was a jerk or you were intentionally choosing obscure creatures that you had no reason to have as a FE to begin with. That fact that FE allows a 1st level player to choose Dragons or Evil Outsiders as the FE is fixable.

Quote:
And IMO, Hunt Target works and fits the class fine. It gives advantages to every fighting style and allows YOU to target what you hate [skilled at fighting, ect] not the feature. So, for me, yes Hunt Target IS the answer.

No, it does not support every fighting style. It's clearly designed to promote a change in combat that Paizo sees for PF2. What we don't know are all the things that we might do in combat. Using spell points, raising shields, repositioning, are all things that will potentially undermine the benefit. What's more, it would appear that if you want to use a long bow, you can't even initiate Hunt Target until you're in the first range increment. Now, if HT gets ride of the short range penalty, that will be an improvement.

N N 959 wrote:
Because they aren't? What in the feature makes you think you are REQUIRED to use it on every target in every fight? If you every run into a situation where it actually DOES make things mechanically worse, don't use it. Simple. You seem to want a sniper skill: cool but that's not a hunting skill.

In what situation does Sneak Attack make things mechanically worse? No, I don't want a Sniping skill and Sniping is absolutely a hunting skill. Go watch the hunting channel. Nobody traps animals, everyone hides and snipes. The only people who use traps are biologists and exterminators.

Using a class' iconic ability shouldn't require an OOC combat analysis of whether the player is screwing themselves over and it certainly shouldn't be a wash. How does it improve the game to add in-game overhead for an ability you're not sure is even helping you? What more it's the classes defining feature?

Quote:
You are stuck on a single type of hunting: sniping. There are plenty of other methods that work without issue. For instance, there is driving the animal into a trap/pit, wounding it and letting it weaken from blood loss, poisoning with blow darts, ect. There is more to hunting than the 'big game hunter' with the elephant gun sniping at creatures.

Uh...scratching my head here...what? I'm talking about playing Pathfinder. This isn't a hunting game.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


Monk is the mobility class. Rangers attack quickly. That's what the agile property represents and rangers get to treat any weapon as agile. With a weapon that is already agile, they get three attacks at about the same accuracy other characters get two. Fast, focused and accurate.
Okay, a ranger treating weapon as agile does have more of a flavor of fast attacks. HT doesn't make you any faster or attack more quickly. In fact, it slows down your attacking as you switch targets and have to spend an action to benefit from it.

Fast, focused, and accurate. A ranger isn't a whirlwind of blades and arrows. They focus on a target and unleash. Anyone making as many attacks as possible in round is losing a lot of accuracy, except the ranger.

N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Blame the conversational blog tone for trying to set up Hunt Target in the context of a ranger as a hunter of their foes.

It isn't the conversational tone, it's the fact that the blog says this:

Blog wrote:
First and foremost, the ranger is a hunter.

I agree with that statement to an extent. I think the explanation of why FE isn't a good representation of hunting and why Hunt Target better represents hunting is blogspeak. They fill the same conceptual role in the class, but have little to do with each other mechanically.

So yes, the combat style mechanics of Hunt Target is now filling the "I'm a Hunter" concept slot in the ranger class. That can mean Favored Enemy mechanics move to an optional slot instead.

Now, all rangers can hunt anything they can see. Hopefully, rangers with experience against certain foes will be able to take class feats for favored enemy bonuses against those foes.


KingOfAnything wrote:


Fast, focused, and accurate. A ranger isn't a whirlwind of blades and arrows. They focus on a target and unleash.

Everyone who uses melee or projectile attacks focuses on a target and unleashes. There's nothing in the lore of Rangers that makes this some ranger-centric quality.

Quote:
Anyone making as many attacks as possible in round is losing a lot of accuracy, except the ranger.

Once again, a flurry of blows is not something associated with Rangers.

In fact, if we watch the Tolkien movies, the elf rangers are extremely mobile. Legolas is all over the place and shooting many different targets within seconds. HT completely undermines this approach.

Quote:
I think the explanation of why FE isn't a good representation of hunting and why Hunt Target better represents hunting is blogspeak. They fill the same conceptual role in the class, but have little to do with each other mechanically.

Thank you. Finally someone who will acknowledge the cost of cigarettes has nothing to do with the cost of Topal toothpaste

What bothers me about this is it feels like Paizo is trying to dupe us, like we'll just accept any rationalization that they want to make. It's really off-putting.

Real hunting doesn't involve attacks that take two or three rounds to pay off. If the class was really going to fill the hunter role, it would emphasis big first hits over multiple attacks. Hunters need to kill animals quickly and reduce or eliminate their own risk. Predator's in the wild don't slash at their pray for multiple rounds, they quickly subdue it.

Quote:
Now, all rangers can hunt anything they can see. Hopefully, rangers with experience against certain foes will be able to take class feats for favored enemy bonuses against those foes.

I'm not going to hold my breadth. Even if they allow it, I am skeptical it will be worth it if they won't even give the class a damage bonus or bonus to hit on the first attack. But, we don't have the full array of feats yet. And to be frank, I'm not necessarily in love with FE. But conceptually HT comes off as all about mechanics and I do not like the implementation.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
In fact, if we watch the Tolkien movies, the elf rangers are extremely mobile. Legolas is all over the place and shooting many different targets within seconds. HT completely undermines this approach.

Is Legolas hunting all those orcs? No? Not every option is going to be good 100% of the time.

You like sneak attack as an example. Sneak attack spending actions and/or risky positioning until higher level. It is not always the best choice to go for the sneak attack. Both sneak attack and HT are going to be more useful against a big boss than a horde of mooks.

Quote:

What bothers me about this is it feels like Paizo is trying to dupe us, like we'll just accept any rationalization that they want to make. It's really off-putting.

Real hunting doesn't involve attacks that take two or three rounds to pay off. If the class was really going to fill the hunter role, it would emphasis big first hits over multiple attacks. Hunters need to kill animals quickly and reduce or eliminate their own risk. Predator's in the wild don't slash at their pray for multiple rounds, they quickly subdue it.

I don't see it as a dupe. It's marketing. Hunt Target doesn't support the killing part of hunting so much as the Perceive and Track part of hunting. That's the conceptual tie in. And really, any martial class should be able to shoot a bow and hit their target. Rangers don't need to be better at that. The combat bonuses are much more about the agile combat style than hunting.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, all rangers can hunt anything they can see. Hopefully, rangers with experience against certain foes will be able to take class feats for favored enemy bonuses against those foes.
I'm not going to hold my breadth. Even if they allow it, I am skeptical it will be worth it if they won't even give the class a damage bonus or bonus to hit on the first attack....

A bonus on first attacks that lasts all day? No thank you. There are much more flavorful mechanics to support a favored enemy concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I was wondering when you'd come out and go straight at me.

I didn't know I was avoiding you but ok.

N N 959 wrote:
Your totally twisting my comment.

"But I honestly suspect that most of the people that come on the forums and complain about FE are people who did not actually play the ranger."... No I really don't think I misrepresented it at all. If that'snot how you feel, that's more a failure or yours to communicate what you wanted than me taking you out of context: You were clearly dismissing those that disagree as those that don't play the ranger...

N N 959 wrote:
Then your GM was a jerk or you were intentionally choosing obscure creatures that you had no reason to have as a FE to begin with. That fact that FE allows a 1st level player to choose Dragons or Evil Outsiders as the FE is fixable.

How is it jerky to make an organic setting where there isn't a bunch of one type of creature taped in because someone has FE? How if that fixable? A valid answer CAN be 'there is no 'average/typical' target for it'. It's also not jerky for the DM not to want to give away setting info if he wants a secret.

N N 959 wrote:
No, it does not support every fighting style.
Really?
N N 959 wrote:
Using spell points, raising shields, repositioning, are all things that will potentially undermine the benefit.

Shocking! you mean doing other actions might take away actions from other thing! Wow! I never knew that... I hope you note the sarcasm... Seriously though, are you being serious? The same thing works against actions that require multiple actions like power attack or two weapon fighting or casting.

N N 959 wrote:
What's more, it would appear that if you want to use a long bow, you can't even initiate Hunt Target until you're in the first range increment.

Movement is a thing and it doesn't go away outside of 100'. Just because it's not AS useful as it is with a shortbow doesn't mean it's not useful.

N N 959 wrote:
In what situation does Sneak Attack make things mechanically worse?

*shrug* don't know but we're talking hypotheticals as i don't really see where that's happening with the ranger either.

N N 959 wrote:
No, I don't want a Sniping skill and Sniping is absolutely a hunting skill.

SO I want a feature like sniping but you don't want sniping... Ok... And I never said sniping wasn't a hunting skill, I said it wasn't hunting period. As I pointed out, there isn't a single monolithic method of hunting.

N N 959 wrote:
Go watch the hunting channel.

Why? I'm not playing a modern day hunter with a high powered scope and a large caliber rifle. There are videos of tribeman running down an antelope/cheetah until it's exhausted. Ones of trappers catching prey. Ones of driving herd animals into a pit or over a cliff. It's super meaningless to focus on one single solitary type of hunting when your whole argument is 'but they SAY it's a hunter'. You might want to expand your worldview.

N N 959 wrote:
Uh...scratching my head here...what? I'm talking about playing Pathfinder. This isn't a hunting game.

I know right? That's why I was scratching my head over your hunting comments. Why are you tying pathfinder combat to real world modern hunting techniques?


KingOfAnything wrote:
Is Legolas hunting all those orcs? No? Not every option is going to be good 100% of the time.

Uh yeah. He is hunting orcs in the Hobbit. There's a fundamental different between something not being beneficial and your class ability being detrimental if you're not able to do the math ahead of time.

Quote:
You like sneak attack as an example. Sneak attack spending actions and/or risky positioning until higher level. It is not always the best choice to go for the sneak attack. Both sneak attack and HT are going to be more useful against a big boss than a horde of mooks.

All those statements are incorrect. Whenever a character can sneak attack, it is never detrimental. Whenever a Ranger can use HT, it might be detrimental. There is no point that a Rogue can roll to apply sneak attack dice and the outcome could be less damage.

Quote:


I don't see it as a dupe. It's marketing.

It's an attempt to redefine the class to support a mechanic rather than changing the mechanics to support the class. Did Pathfinder get rid of Smite Evil or Sneak Attack or cantrips? No. They didn't change the class to support a different mechanic. The Ranger is not a Slayer and I do not want to see the class get turned into that.

Quote:
Hunt Target doesn't support the killing part of hunting so much as the Perceive and Track part of hunting.

I'm glad you brought that up. When's the last time you saw or heard a creature that you need to make a Perception or Survival check against? Other than someone going inviso, I can saw never. So I don't get what that's suppose to accomplish. What's more, they appear to have gotten rid of the Bluff, Sense Motive, and K. Check benefit, so you are no longer an expert on your target, you just can find them better...which you don't actually need to do.

Granted, we don't know how Recall Knowledge works, but it appears to only be about combat. So yeah, this is about stalking and killing...slaying. Nevermind that the Slayer's Studied Target still got the non-combat skill bonuses and worked on every attack.

Quote:

Rangers don't need to be better at that. The combat bonuses are much more about the agile combat style than hunting. [/quote You're the one who just said Rangers are "fast, focused, and accurate," so it sounds like you felt they should be better at it just a post ago.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
You like sneak attack as an example. Sneak attack spending actions and/or risky positioning until higher level. It is not always the best choice to go for the sneak attack. Both sneak attack and HT are going to be more useful against a big boss than a horde of mooks.
All those statements are incorrect. Whenever a character can sneak attack, it is never detrimental. Whenever a Ranger can use HT, it might be detrimental. There is no point that a Rogue can roll to apply sneak attack dice and the outcome could be less damage.

You aren't comparing the two on an even level then. If the rogue has already spent the actions to sneak attack, it's never detrimental to sneak attack. If the ranger has already spent the action to Hunt Target, it is never detrimental to benefit from it.

Quote:
Quote:
Hunt Target doesn't support the killing part of hunting so much as the Perceive and Track part of hunting.
I'm glad you brought that up. When's the last time you saw or heard a creature that you need to make a Perception or Survival check against? Other than someone going inviso, I can saw never. So I don't get what that's suppose to accomplish. What's more, they appear to have gotten rid of the Bluff, Sense Motive, and K. Check benefit, so you are no longer an expert on your target, you just can find them better...which you don't actually need to do.

Invisible wizards is a more common problem than you are going on about. The more hunting-centric case is closer to finding the boar you can hear disrupting the woods, or following the tracks of a bear back to its den.

Quote:
Quote:
Rangers don't need to be better at that. The combat bonuses are much more about the agile combat style than hunting.
You're the one who just said Rangers are "fast, focused, and accurate," so it sounds like you felt they should be better at it just a post ago.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Rangers are the best at making many attacks quickly and accurately. Anyone can take a single shot.


graystone wrote:
No I really don't think I misrepresented it at all. If that'snot how you feel, that's more a failure or yours to communicate what you wanted than me taking you out of context: You were clearly dismissing those that disagree as those that don't play the ranger...

Yeah, you did. I am dismissing posts from people who don't play Rangers but come on the blogs and criticize aspects of them. That isn't in the same universe as your twisting my statement into "everyone who disagrees hasn't played the class."

N N 959 wrote:
How is it jerky to make an organic setting where there isn't a bunch of one type of creature taped in because someone has FE? How if that fixable? A valid answer CAN be 'there is no 'average/typical' target for it'. It's also not jerky for the DM not to want to give away setting info if he wants a secret.

This is a game. Everything in the game is contrived. If the GM is doing homebrew, then the GM has an obligation, nay, a duty, to incorporate elements into the game that celebrate/promote the players' choices. A GM whose party is all martials and makes every encounter about skill checks, is being a jerk. A GM whose party has lots of skill monkeys, who doesn't ask for a single skill check is a being a jerk.

FE works on an entire class of creature. I find it implausible that a GM can't use some of those creatures in an entire campaign or conversely can't justify sharing the types fo creatures that might be a good choice. Does that means everyone will be 100% satisfied with FE, no. Nevertheless, I am not defending FE as the be-all-end-all of class defining feats. Just that the problems people complaining about are easily solvable.

Quote:
]Shocking! you mean doing other actions might take away actions from other thing! Wow! I never knew that... I hope you note the sarcasm... Seriously though, are you being serious? The same thing works against actions that require multiple actions like power attack or two weapon fighting or casting.

Uh...no. Power Attack is not a mathematical wash in some situations. The only time it's not better is if you can absolutely kill the creature rolling a 1 on damage. TWF is always on, just like Power Attack. I don't need to spend an action to use them. What's more, they aren't class defining abilities. They are choices one makes given a style preference.

Quote:
]Movement is a thing and it doesn't go away outside of 100'. Just because it's not AS useful as it is with a shortbow doesn't mean it's not useful.

Uh yeah, if I can't even operate HT in a longbow's 2nd range increment, then it's essentially pointless. Mark's example makes it clear that the ability is designed to facilitate the multiple attacks per round be not requiring the ranged attacker to move closer. But the longbow will rarely get that benefit. In six year of playing PFS and ten levels of an archery ranger, I might have made one single attack outside of 100 yards...maybe.

Quote:
*shrug* don't know but we're talking hypotheticals as i don't really see where that's happening with the ranger either.

Go read the posts in this thread. This point of this thread was looking at the math and whether HT actually improves damage.

Quote:
I know right? That's why I was scratching my head over your hunting comments. Why are you tying pathfinder combat to real world modern hunting techniques?

Paizo is the one telling us that the Ranger is now "first and foremost" a hunter. Because you're the one telling me about all the ways people can hunt and the HT skill doesn't support any real world notion of hunting. I don't need +2 to track a creature I've seen or heard. I need +2 to find a creature I haven't seen or heard. If I'm stalking a creature, then I need to find it by following its tracks. HT target doesn't help with that, FE did. Once I see the creature, I need to be able to sneak up on it and kill it quickly. HT doesn't help with that. HT doesnt pay-off unless I'm in some protracted battle. That isn't hunting.


KingOfAnything wrote:


You aren't comparing the two on an even level then. If the rogue has already spent the actions to sneak attack, it's never detrimental to sneak attack. If the ranger has already spent the action to Hunt Target, it is never detrimental to benefit from it.

There are no extra actions to sneak attack. A rogue has to approach the target in order to attack. Either you can flank as you approach, or you can't. If the target is already flat-footed you do nothing extra. There is no extra move action I need to spend. Even better, someone can provide the flank and I do nothing but stand there and sneak attack. Another target comes along? No extra action required. What's more, flanking or attacking someone flat-footed has an inherent accuracy boost. The ability leads to higher accuracy and more damage...on all attacks.

HT requires I spend a move action for every new target. I can't get it for free like Sneak Attack because of someone being immobilized or paralyzed or because of any condition.

Quote:
Invisible wizards is a more common problem than you are going on about.

That's nonsense. In PFS they happen about once every 10 scenarios. What's more, glitterdust is as ubiquitous as it gets.

Quote:
The more hunting-centric case is closer to finding the boar you can hear disrupting the woods, or following the tracks of a bear back to its den.

Which I've never seen or heard about in PFS. And the one scenario where some monsters kidnapped an NPC and ran off through the forest, the scenario didn't even allow us to use tracking to find the creature.

Quote:
I don't see how I contradicted myself. Rangers are the best at making many attacks quickly and accurately. Anyone can take a single shot.

No, anyone can't take a single shot that kills a hunted target. That's exactly what a skilled hunter is able to do, know exactly where to strike to quickly bring down a target. The very thing that should be part of a HT ability is missing. Why? Because this is really an ability about increasing DPR at the trade off of lowering the front-loaded damage. This feat is about reducing a Ranger's ability to quickly bring down a target and slowing down the quick kills. The opposite of hunting.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
No, anyone can't take a single shot that kills a hunted target. That's exactly what a skilled hunter is able to do, know exactly where to strike to quickly bring down a target. The very thing that should be part of a HT ability is missing. Why? Because this is really an ability about increasing DPR at the trade off of lowering the front-loaded damage. This feat is about reducing a Ranger's ability to quickly bring down a target and slowing down the quick kills. The opposite of hunting.

A good hunter will have applied Hunt Target well before combat starts. Anyone can land a shot in the first round of combat. Rangers can hit three.


KingOfAnything wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
No, anyone can't take a single shot that kills a hunted target. That's exactly what a skilled hunter is able to do, know exactly where to strike to quickly bring down a target. The very thing that should be part of a HT ability is missing. Why? Because this is really an ability about increasing DPR at the trade off of lowering the front-loaded damage. This feat is about reducing a Ranger's ability to quickly bring down a target and slowing down the quick kills. The opposite of hunting.
A good hunter will have applied Hunt Target well before combat starts. Anyone can land a shot in the first round of combat. Rangers can hit three.

1) 80% of PFS encounters you don't see/hear your target until you're rolling for init. So please don't make judgments about the quality of the Ranger when standard encounters are already designed to preclude this.

2) Yeah, it will become SOP for every social encounter to include the Ranger designating the NPC as a target.

3) That three hits works on the first target and that's assuming you've got your weapon drawn, which you won't in a social situation. So sorry, no three hits in the first round. Once you kill the first target, you're already in a position where HT may be detrimental to apply to other targets.

4) Oh wait, what if that first target escapes? You aren't using HT on anyone else if you want to track that first target. Sneak Attack has no such restriction at level 1.

Anyone can land a single shot. An actual "hunter" can land a killing blow with that single shot. Please don't try and pretend "hunting" is about landing multiple shots.

Open your eyes KoA. This is feat is cleverly designed to reduce rocket tag. You're giving up first round damage for increased damage later on. This gives the GM more time to have the NPCs react and even further mitigate the effects of HT. It works to the benefit of PCs facing Rangers as well.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You have a lot of assumptions that I do not share.

1. 80% of the time characters don't bother to scout ahead in PFS. This encourages the ranger to scout a bit, one of the roles associated with the class. Even if it is only listening at the door.

2. Perhaps a bit rude, but not a particular problem.

3. Are we talking about the same class you were worried about not being enough of a hunter before? If you are hunting a target, you probably have it drawn. Hunting is where the ability Hunt Target is supposed to shine, not social parties.

You keep explaining goals of the system as if they were problems with it. Choosing what to do with your actions and deciding when it is worth using certain abilities is a good thing.

A ranger targets the boss in the first round, then cleans up the mooks that aren't worth using the ability on. If the boss escapes, the ranger can track them. If not, he's ready with his weapon buffs.

Anyone decent with a bow can land a killing shot. Don't pretend that is exclusive to a hunter.


KingOfAnything wrote:


1. 80% of the time characters don't bother to scout ahead in PFS. This encourages the ranger to scout a bit, one of the roles associated with the class. Even if it is only listening at the door.

I won't lie. This made me laugh. Scouting ahead is also not a real thing in PFS. Color me skeptical that this ability is going to work on a random creature that I hear grunt behind a closed door. I'm going to open the door in a room full of ten orcs and know exactly which creature grunted, even if it didn't make another sound? lol.

Quote:
3. Are we talking about the same class you were worried about not being enough of a hunter before? If you are hunting a target, you probably have it drawn. Hunting is where the ability Hunt Target is supposed to shine, not social parties.

The only way you're going to get three hits in to start combat is if you are already aware of the target before init is rolled. That almost never happens in dungeon encounters. Unless there is some new encounter mechanic we don't know about, outside of a social setting, three attacks with HT bonus at the start of combat is going to be rarer then your third FE.

Quote:
You keep explaining goals of the system as if they were problems with it. Choosing what to do with your actions and deciding when it is worth using certain abilities is a good thing.

Not at the expense of the class' signature ability, it's not. Rogues don't have to give damage to use Sneak Attack. There's no danger of it not being worth it. Not even the Slayer Studied Target was this handicapped. A Rogue isn't giving up anything to gain the benefits of Sneak Attack. A Ranger runs the risk of invoking the ability and getting nothing for it. Why? There's no reason for the Ranger to be the only class that has this problem.

Quote:
A ranger targets the boss in the first round, then cleans up the mooks that aren't worth using the ability on.

That's a rationalization. Sneak Attack works the same on mooks and bosses. FE worked the same.

Quote:
If the boss escapes,

???? You're joking right? Name a single PFS scenario where the boss escapes and the scenario allows you to use Track to find them?

Quote:
Anyone decent with a bow can land a killing shot. Don't pretend that is exclusive to a hunter.

Knowing where to strike something is exactly what being a skilled hunter entails, claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest. FE was "precision" damage. This was the ethos of FE, not a flurry of fast attacks that were more accurate than other people's flurry of attacks.

Paizo is attempting to change the combat ethos of the Ranger to fit the mechanic. That's inherently bad art.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
PFS

You do know that lots of people play the game and aren't people you play with in PFS right?


graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
PFS
You do know that lots of people play the game and aren't people you play with in PFS right?

And all those people can change the rules to be whatever they want. You can't do that in PFS. More the point, PFS is sanctioned/authorized/produced by Paizo. So it represents a defacto environment in which the rules need to work. If it's broken in PFS, then it would behoove Paizo to revisit the mechanic.

Also, PFS is consistent and GMs are not allowed to screw with the rules. When players come on and give their anecdotes, there's no way to know what other rules they've changed or what shenanigans the GMs allowing. How things work in PFS is going to be much more repeatable and representative for how the mechanics are interacting. Plus, GMs can't protect the game from players finding loopholes.

So while I am curious which group generates more revenue, I can't believe Paizo would ignore how the rules work in that environment, even a little.

51 to 100 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / ranger hunt target analysis All Messageboards