If I'm understanding everyone correctly, this is an ability that is only valuable in encounters where the target the ranger picks survives till the ranger's third round and never moves behind cover?
That seems pretty niche, unless we assume that combat is infrequent and lengthy with few enemies.
And all those people can change the rules to be whatever they want.
Not every non-PFS player gets to alter the game on a whim.
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.
No it's not. It's a houseruled version of the game with alteration to make random players viable.
Also, PFS is consistent and GMs are not allowed to screw with the rules.
PFS rules, not base pathfinder ones.
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.
And? I have no way of knowing if your PFS judge got the rules right either. Or is up to date on the errata/FAQ's. Nor do I know the PFS houserules offhand so I think we're even.
How things work in PFS is going to be much more repeatable and representative for how the mechanics are interacting.
Not so as large swathes of material has been altered/removed. it can't be representative of mechanic it doesn't have or use.
Plus, GMs can't protect the game from players finding loopholes.
Isn't what that stack of houserule is for?
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.
Don't know, don't care. I don't think it wants to alienate either group.
If I'm understanding everyone correctly, this is an ability that is only valuable in encounters where the target the ranger picks survives till the ranger's third round and never moves behind cover?
That seems pretty niche, unless we assume that combat is infrequent and lengthy with few enemies.
It works on the first, second and third rounds... it's valuable if you ever make more than 1 attack vs it per round or fire into the 2nd range. I't be surprised if some of the class feats don't expand somewhat on this.
Secondly, it's hard to say how long targets are meant to live as combat numbers are changing. Not sure if 3 rounds will be long of short for a target to live.
If I'm understanding everyone correctly, this is an ability that is only valuable in encounters where the target the ranger picks survives till the ranger's third round and never moves behind cover?
That seems pretty niche, unless we assume that combat is infrequent and lengthy with few enemies.
It works on the first, second and third rounds... it's valuable if you ever make more than 1 attack vs it per round or fire into the 2nd range. I't be surprised if some of the class feats don't expand somewhat on this.
Secondly, it's hard to say how long targets are meant to live as combat numbers are changing. Not sure if 3 rounds will be long of short for a target to live.
I'm just reading other people's math on it in this thread, and assuming that the one action cost to activate it needs to be recouped through additional attacks or chance of success.
But we really do need to know how long combat lasts to assess this sort of ability. Even if targets never duck behind a tree because they're being focused on by the ranger, they'd still need to survive.
I'm just reading other people's math on it in this thread, and assuming that the one action cost to activate it needs to be recouped through additional attacks or chance of success.
I'll be honest, I don't agree with the premise so I really didn't pay attention to the 'math'. It helps you keep track of a foe [in case of hiding, invisible, smoke/dust, ect, reduces multiple attack penalty and helps track.
Now some say 'but it takes an action!!! Well, sounds like a good reason to sneak or toss out a trap to cut off LOS, or some other way to start off with a full round of attacks. Even if you hunt then make 2 attacks, it's not a bad deal when you need high rolls to hit. It's been suggested that the raising a shield isn't a bad action since the last attack doesn't hit as well so not getting it while hunting would be the same AND you get a better hit on your second attack.
So IMO, the 'math' is flawed because it doesn't take everything into account. Now hunt MAY turn out to be bad after giving it a try in the playtest but I don't think it'll be because of this 'math'.
| 2 people 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.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.
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.
You know the problem with your argument is you suggested that people that complain about FE are people that don't play a ranger but then you say hunt target is not the answer when there is no way you've played a ranger using hunt target.
And all those people can change the rules to be whatever they want.Not every non-PFS player gets to alter the game on a whim.
And what are "Campaign Clarifications" if not "PFS changes the rules to better suit what their game is about" anyway?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as written, it doesn't feel anything like a hunter, more like serial killer.
More than Favored Enemy (Humanoid) did? I doubt it. Favored Enemy (Humanoid) gave off a serial killer vibe at least as strongly as any vibe this gives off.
And that was probably the single most common Favored Enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know the problem with your argument is you suggested that people that complain about FE are people that don't play a ranger but then you say hunt target is not the answer when there is no way you've played a ranger using hunt target.No one in this thread has played with Hunt Target except Mark. And the devs are often subject to unavoidable bias. If you build a car from scratch, you're likely to enjoy it, despite its flaws.
So everyone trying to laud HT is in the same boat as I am and those who are bashing FE and who don't actually play Rangers have less credibility and insight.
In addition, I don't need to drive a car with a no backseats to know that its not a family vehicle. Many people possess insight into how things work or will work or will work out. I don't doubt that there will be players who will find ways to min/max this mechanic. But as written, it doesn't feel anything like a hunter, more like serial killer.
Your practically arguing against yourself at this point. All I'm saying is you can't both say that experience is important to judge something while also saying experience isn't important to judge something.
Also isn't the difference between a hunter and a serial killer (aside from the mental illness) pretty well just what they are hunting. (people or animals.)
If your saying you don't like the flavor of it. that's fine but as far as how effective it is mechanically I don't think that is as clear cut.
Hmm yeah I'm imagining there will be a ranger feats that adds on to skill checks or something. Some way to further invest into HT.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no. HT target is about mauling your enemy. There are no social benefits attached to the ability. Even Studied Target boosted Sense Motive and Bluff and Knowlege Checks. IT even allowed you to make them untrained.
Tricking and manipulating people is a standard part of serial killer behavior, as is being able to read them. I do not find bonuses to doing so to make something 'less serial killer-like'.
Hunt Target is for killing, that's it. Your not good at killing your target because you've been studying them your entire career, you're good at killing anything after watching it for a few seconds.
Yes? That's...actually super non serial killer. Serial killers stalk specific victim types for prolonged periods. This sounds, much like Studied Target always did, like you're just good at reading the weak spots of enemies in a fight. Which is something almost all good warriors do to some degree.
That's way less serial killer themed and creepy, at least to me.
So no, FE is not about strictly slaying targets as is HT, reinforced by the blog itself reducing Rangers to hunters "first and foremost," never mind that this is hot hunting works mechanically.
Rangers being hunters makes perfect sense with all fluff and mechanics they've ever had. They're maybe emphasizing it a little more, but only a little.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tricking and manipulating people is a standard part of serial killer behavior, as is being able to read them. I do not find bonuses to doing so to make something 'less serial killer-like'.You're right, I should have said murderer, not serial killer. I meant to invoke the concept of someone who kills by repeatedly attacking someone. As a opposed to a hunter or an assassin who needs to kill quickly and efficiently.
Rangers being hunters makes perfect sense with all fluff and mechanics they've ever had. They're maybe emphasizing it a little more, but only a little.Rangers being able to hunt is certainly valid They were never hunters "first and foremost," they were trackers and guides, first and foremost. But more to the point, HT does not create any concept of hunting to me. It feels decidedly not like hunting in that I'm expecting to take 2-3 rounds to gain benefit. The only exception is the range increment benefit, but if I'm using a longbow, I don't appear to be able to get that.
Your only metric of benefit is total expected damage. That is really skewing your impression of the mechanic.
How about measuring the probability that a higher AC, one-hit target dies in the first round? When the ranger has been hunting the target, he’s more likely to get a killing blow off in a given round than his companions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Uh...scratching my head here...what? I'm talking about playing Pathfinder. This isn't a hunting game.
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.
You lack coherency in your replies, besides the constant theme of "who don't play like I do is wrong".
Hunting channel is entertainment, not a depiction of how hunting in a medieval-like fantasy word work.
In that kind of word, people hunt to eat, not for fun. Setting up traps is way more safe and efficient.
Today traps are less used because:
1) they are dangerous for humans and/or pets and/or farm animals;
2) they are considered inhumane as, often, they don't kill the target immediately.
That notwithstanding we are still using a lot of traps against pests. How often you see warning sign because poisoned lures for rats have been dispersed in an area? My apartment building does that in the premise at least twice every year.
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.
Movies are an extremely bad reference. The goal of movies is to give scenic battles, not realistic battles.
If we take movies as a source, elves should have a huge penalty for anything related to tactics.Consider the third movie of The Hobbit. The elves are a race that excels in bow use, they have access to a great shield wall (the dwarven formation), so what they do? Jump over the wall and enter melee combat against the orcs that are physically stronger and more numerous.
Tolkien, that had fought in WWI and did experienced useless assaults, probably was rolling in his grave when that was filmed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Curious, in 18 years of playing D&D3/Pathfinder (mostly as a GM) I have done a decent number of ranged attacks with bows, crossbows and even slings at 300+ feet.
My players with archery specialized characters? Hundreds.Maybe, to cite your words, "your GM is a jerk" as he doesn't give you a way to shine with your ranged attacks?
There are no extra actions to sneak attack. A rogue has to approach the target in order to attack.
Bows? Slings? Crossbows? Throwing weapons?
Or rogues can't use that kind of weapon in your world?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.
Again "in PFS it doesn't exist, so it doesn't exist anywhere".
People play outside of PFS.|
|
PFSYou 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.
So you assume that PF2S will have the exact same meta than PFS?
I doubt it, different rules generate a different meta.And you really think that Paizo is not making money from the AP?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your only metric of benefit is total expected damage. That is really skewing your impression of the mechanic.No, that's not only my metric.
How about measuring the probability that a higher AC, one-hit target dies in the first round? When the ranger has been hunting the target, he’s more likely to get a killing blow off in a given round than his companions.Based on what? A second attack with a +1 that you probably won't even get?
Oddly enough, it feels like you're overlooking everything else about this feat that isn't captured by the metrics. You know what might kill a target in the first round? Actually getting that second attack in the first round.
Your tactics are pretty bad if you aren’t getting a second attack. Try improving those.
Mark also tries to suggest that a third attack isn't so valuable if it only has a 10% chance to hit. The problem with that argument is that a 10% chance to hit isn't 10% more damage in actual combat. It's a 10% chance to do full damage a possible killing blow which has all kinds of non-EV benefits. Mark suggests you probably don't need HT against mook and that makes me scratch my head. Wasn't the point to turn FE into something that has more flexibility and general usefulness? I'm fighting 90% of the encounters against mooks and every target I'm having to figure out if it's worth it to give up a second or third attack for a +1 on second attack I may not even get? So Mark is spinning it into more of an anti-boss feat? I don't get the logic here. I honestly feel like the developers looked into the scrap bin and this was what was left so they called it Hunt Target and gave it a +2 on Seek and Track and told us the Ranger really is the Hunter. I wonder if Gary Gygax knew he'd named the class incorrectly all these years.
Getting FE on mooks doesn’t make much difference. It’s most likely overkill. You only benefit from FE against a few bosses, though. You get HT against every boss and don’t waste the bonuses against the fodder.
I kind of hope the fail but still deal damage thing is fighter only. I don't think every class should end up with that exact ability Something similar would be ok. Instead of damage some other effect from a miss but I don't know what it would be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that almost every aspect of hunting is done better by a Rogue than a Ranger. Pretty much the only part they aren't better at is Tracking, and that's only because since 3.0 the devs have been trying super hard to keep tracking locked to Rangers, just so they have something to feel special about. Rather than FE or HT, wouldn't it make better sense to give Rangers some variant of Sneak Attack if you want them to be hunters? Or even just make them an outdoorsy Rogue archetype? I realize probably nobody wants that, but it's the only conclusion that makes sense when you make the claim that Ranger is first and foremost a Hunter. For that matter though, I think Ranger has been lacking in a unified design goal ever since 3.0. How do you define Ranger? Because without a solid idea of a design goal for the Ranger that keeps it unique from other classes, you can't design good mechanics. And honestly, "Oh, he's a hunter" is not a good unique design goal, because any class can be a hunter if they take the right skillset. If you were to build a Rogue character as a hunter and a Ranger character as a hunter, the Rogue would almost certainly be better at it simply because he's better at skills and Sneak Attack has near perfect synergy with it.
As far as the mechanics of HT, it does seem weak, however that is at it's most basic form and we know feats to improve it will be a thing. I can't say as I have an issue with the power of it, my only real issues are that A. it traps the Ranger into standing still the same way that PF1 Flurry of Blows trapped the Monk (which is uninteresting, dangerous for melee Rangers, and antithetical to the design goal of making combat less static). and B. it really isn't particularly thematic for a hunter. Sure it works, but you could make an argument for that design space to apply to any martial class. What makes a Ranger better at quick strikes than a Fighter? Hunting skill? That really doesn't follow.
In truth, I'd be more likely to play a HT Ranger than a FE Ranger. I strongly dislike FE, though I will admit it is fairly thematic. In my experience you either wind up benefiting from it a lot, or not very much at all, and to benefit from it you often have to metagame, ie choosing Human as your Favored Enemy, or only choosing to play a Ranger in a campaign centered around a specific creature type. Quite frankly, I don't see it as the GM "being a jerk" for not rearranging his encounters to fit whatever you happen to have picked as a favored enemy, especially if you primarily play pre-written adventures like my group does.
|
|
I find it interesting that almost every aspect of hunting is done better by a Rogue than a Ranger.
Huh? The only thing Rogues have over Rangers in terms of 'hunting' is Sneak Attack, which is hardly 'better in every way', and indeed is very specific to a certain style of hunting.
Both have access to the same skill-based hunting tricks, and while Rogue might theoretically have an edge in number of Skill Feat, I'm deeply skeptical there are enough hunting-specific Skill Feats to make that a real advantage.
And evidence is pretty good that Rangers get better Perception than Rogues do. Plus access to better traps, access to a hunting dog (or hunting tiger, or whatever), and probably better weapon selection and Proficiency to boot.
I find it interesting that almost every aspect of hunting is done better by a Rogue than a Ranger.Huh? The only thing Rogues have over Rangers in terms of 'hunting' is Sneak Attack, which is hardly 'better in every way', and indeed is very specific to a certain style of hunting.
Both have access to the same skill-based hunting tricks, and while Rogue might theoretically have an edge in number of Skill Feat, I'm deeply skeptical there are enough hunting-specific Skill Feats to make that a real advantage.
And evidence is pretty good that Rangers get better Perception than Rogues do. Plus access to better traps, access to a hunting dog (or hunting tiger, or whatever), and probably better weapon selection and Proficiency to boot.
I suppose I should have said as good as rather than better. They're only technically better at killing their prey, though that is a pretty major aspect imo.
As far as comparison:
Rogues have earlier access to higher level skills and skill feats... and a lot of rogue-ish skills have excellent synergy for hunting I would bet. point Rogue
Rangers having higher Perception seems iffy, do you have a ref for that?
Although they mentioned Rangers being able to do more with snares, the only specific things they mentioned are being able to set them faster,and better save DCs. The first is really only a major advantage in combat. Still, that is a point to the Ranger, albeit one that gives Rangers special access to something that rogues should also have...considering traps are traditionally their thing.
Incidentally, at the prices they list snares at, I can't imagine using snares for hunting would be profitable.
I would give you the hunting animal, but there's no indication in the blog that Rangers get an animal companion. Besides, it wouldn't be hard for a Rogue to train a hunting dog or ten if he takes the right skills. You don't need a full on Animal Companion for hunting. If Ranger gets an Animal Companion I'll yield that point though.
Better Weapon Proficiency sure, but you don't need fancy weapons for hunting, especially if you have Sneak Attack to boost your damage. Point to Ranger, but it's a minor one.
Sneak attack vs HT: point Rogue.
To me, that looks like Rogue has a narrow advantage, or is about equal if Rangers do get an animal companion or better perception. If they get both they have a narrow edge on the Rogue, but if they're gonna say the Ranger's niche is hunter, he should have more than just a narrow edge, don't you think?
|
|
Animal Companions, Cohorts, Familiars, and pretty much ALL tertiary "Characters" that are attached to a Class have been relegated to being options they can pick up through Class Feats as far as I've seen for Wizard, Druid, Pallly.
I for one think this is a GREAT way to handle it, instead of players juggling Archetypes to get or lose a Cohort they instead must CHOOSE go get it.
|
|
I suppose I should have said as good as rather than better. They're only technically better at killing their prey, though that is a pretty major aspect imo.
Rogue Sneak Attack appears to be weapon-locked in PF2 (based on someone in a delve having a specific Feat to use them with maces and clubs rather than finesse weapons), and it seems to progress a bit slower, so I wouldn't assume they're 'better at killing their prey'. As good? Very possibly, but I highly doubt their DPR is vastly higher all factors taken into account even when sneak attacking.
As far as comparison:
Rogues have earlier access to higher level skills and skill feats... and a lot of rogue-ish skills have excellent synergy for hunting I would bet. point Rogue
Like I said, this only matters if there are more hunting related Skill Feats than the Ranger can get. Which we don't know yet.
It's also very possible that Rangers get some extra Skill Ranks or Skill Feats themselves (if nowhere near as many as Rogue). They and Bards were the 6+Int skill Classes in PF1, after all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they get some serious skill advantages.
Rangers having higher Perception seems iffy, do you have a ref for that?
I thought I did, but I appear to have been mistaken. It's still how I'd bet, but I have no definitive evidence.
Although they mentioned Rangers being able to do more with snares, the only specific things they mentioned are being able to set them faster,and better save DCs. The first is really only a major advantage in combat. Still, that is a point to the Ranger, albeit one that gives Rangers special access to something that rogues should also have...considering traps are traditionally their thing.
Incidentally, at the prices they list snares at, I can't imagine using snares for hunting would be profitable.
Actually, they also mentioned being able to set them up for free (at lower Save DC) and that sounds perfect for hunting.
I would give you the hunting animal, but there's no indication in the blog that Rangers get an animal companion. Besides, it wouldn't be hard for a Rogue to train a hunting dog or ten if he takes the right skills. You don't need a full on Animal Companion for hunting. If Ranger gets an Animal Companion I'll yield that point though.
Uh...reread the Blog. It specifically notes they can get a Class Feat that gives them an Animal Companion with the same progression as a Druid's.
Better Weapon Proficiency sure, but you don't need fancy weapons for hunting, especially if you have Sneak Attack to boost your damage. Point to Ranger, but it's a minor one.
This goes back to Sneak Attack being seemingly weapon locked, as well as Rogue's traditional lack of martial weapons. If you can't Sneak Attack with a Spear and lack Longbow Proficiency, I'd argue you've got some holes in your 'hunting' arsenal.
Sneak attack vs HT: point Rogue.
I think I disagree. Particularly for a hunter, and especially if Sneak Attack is range-limited, the ability to ignore range penalties and make iterative attacks at lower penalties is probably better than sneak attack for most styles of hunter most of the time, though it's a near thing if you're hunting via melee weapon or shortbow.
To me, that looks like Rogue has a narrow advantage, or is about equal if Rangers do get an animal companion or better perception. If they get both they have a narrow edge on the Rogue, but if they're gonna say the Ranger's niche is hunter, he should have more than just a narrow edge, don't you think?
Between the best and second best Class at it? No, actually, I don't. That's like being annoyed Rangers are only one Proficiency step behind Fighter on weapons. This is especially true given that 'assassin' (one of Rogue's thematic niches) is so close mechanically to 'hunter' in many ways.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of course interested in what two-weapon fighting actually does, if not reduce multiple attack penalty (my speculation is that it allows multiple attacks per action at the cost of some sort of feat, but that's immaterial).
Two-weapon fighting, in the sense of just alternating attacks between weapons, doesn't do anything inherently.
If you mean TWF Feats, then we know what Double Slice (the initial TWF Feat) does:
It allows you to make two attacks (one with each weapon, one of which must be agile) for two actions, both at no penalty (the two also combine together for DR and Weakness purposes). That no penalty bit is huge. Your third attack, if you make one, suffers the normal penalties for having attacked twice already (-10, -8 if using an Agile weapon, -6 for a Ranger with Hunt Target active and an Agile weapon).
I'm of course interested in what two-weapon fighting actually does, if not reduce multiple attack penalty (my speculation is that it allows multiple attacks per action at the cost of some sort of feat, but that's immaterial).Two-weapon fighting, in the sense of just alternating attacks between weapons, doesn't do anything inherently.
If you mean TWF Feats, then we know what Double Slice (the initial TWF Feat) does:
It allows you to make two attacks (one with each weapon, one of which must be agile) for two actions, both at no penalty (the two also combine together for DR and Weakness purposes). That no penalty bit is huge. Your third attack, if you make one, suffers the normal penalties for having attacked twice already (-10, -8 if using an Agile weapon, -6 for a Ranger with Hunt Target active and an Agile weapon).
Hmm doesn't double slice make the hunter ability for reducing penalties quite a bit less beneficial?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm doesn't double slice make the hunter ability for reducing penalties quite a bit less beneficial?
It makes it completely useless if you're not going to use that third attack, but if you do use the third attack, you're effectively giving up one attack at -8 for all future ones to only be at -6.
Whether that's a net gain depends on how long you fight a single foe for. Evidence currently favors 'a bit longer than in PF1', but that evidence could easily be misleading.
Yeah, I was actually on the "Oh this is a cool ranger ability" early on, but the more I think about it, the more it shows its flaws. If it's mathematically superior to Hunt target, then full attack every round, then it eliminates much of the tactical depth that 2e's action economy grants. If it's not mathematically superior, it's a niche option, only for use against something with a lot of HP, which can last more rounds before going down. And in either case, it's a lot less effective if the enemy decides that denying you your -6 final attack is worth more than whatever their last action is worth, and just 5 foot steps away, leaving you only 2 attacks per turn. (And this is not even mentioning the Animal Companion mechanics which would get you only a -0/-3, but since we don't know that there aren't buffs for companions against hunted foes, I'll reserve judgement on that).
I can get not just wanting to do a damage buff or accuracy buff for hunt target, as you want to have a breadth of abilities that feel distinct, but I could definitely see something that plays into the mechanics a little more. Like maybe Hunt target just gives some univeral benefit, like the +2 to seek and track, but your choice of fighting style gives you appropriate benefits for combat, like maybe for TWF, if you hit with both weapons they take some sort of penalty next round. That way it combos well with double slice, but still works ok without it, and if you want to go for the third attack, because you missed one of your first two, you can, but it's not necessarily the baseline expectation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you assume that PF2S will have the exact same meta than PFS?
I assume that PF2S will maintain the current policy of "Run it with our ruleset, do not deviate from it."
I also respect PFS for its exercising of the existing Pathfinder ruleset.
Look the posts to which I was replying, they where all about "this don't work because in PFS that never happen".
"In PFS that never happen" is the PFS for PF1 meta. Nothing guarantee that it will stay the same in PFS for PF2.It is possible that in PF2S enemies will not fight to the death and instead flee, possibly with the McGuffin (and I feel that enemies always fighting to the death is bad GMing), it is possible to have encounters start at above 100' and so on.
Sure, it is possible that no one will bring a ranged weapon because "they aren't needed in PFS", but I think that leveling adventures to the minimum common denominator is bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "hunted target" diatribe and initiative.
"You also gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks when you Seek your target and a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your target."
That +2 bonus to Seek and Track is applicable to initiative when you meet the target, or we use Perception or Survival (as appropriate) when we roll for initiative?
I think that disregarding the other effects of Hunt Target is reductive.
The other thing to keep in mind about Hunt Target vs Double Slice is that the enemy types matter quite a bit. Against normal or resistant foes (especially ones with low HP) Double Slicing will usually be the better result.
However, it will be worse at exploiting weaknesses. Being able to trigger weakness on all of your attacks while still maintaining competitive accuracy is pretty good while also feeling very "Ranger-y."
Also, if only 1 of your 2 weapons applies weakness or resistance, you may just want to use that.
In many other threads where using an action to activate some sort of bonus has been questioned, compared to using the action to make an attack, we've been told "Yeah, but that attack would have been at -10 or -8, so using the action for something else is a good idea."
So, this made me think of something. Who says you have to use your first action of the round to Hunt? Why can't I use actions 1 and 2 to attack normally (or move and attack or whatever combination you want) and then on the "it's not usually worth a swing anyways" action I activate Hunt Target. Now I get the full benefit of the reduced penalty for all three attacks on the first round using it instead of waiting until round 2. How would this affect the math?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, but (Move, Move, Hunt) could well be preferable to (Move, Move, Attack) depending on the specific stats of the target.
Not if Move, Move, Attack is an option. -0 attacks, the first in a turn, are really good. Losing one for a penalty reducer is almost never a good plan.
Hunt, Attack, Attack, may well often be better than Attack, Attack, Attack, though, at least in the long term. Which isn't nothing.