ranger hunt target analysis


Prerelease Discussion

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

graystone wrote:
Your point hold for both PFS and RAW tables, so anything that diminished RAW ones also diminishes PFS tables.

Normally that would be true. Except for several fundamental differences between those playing PFS and those who don't:

1) "Campaign clarifications" clarify rules that people aren't sure about;

2) Venture officers can and do make rulings on how the rules are suppose to work;

3) The mandate that GMs follow the rules and run scenarios as written. PFS officers will retroactively fix TPKs, deaths, or loss of awards where GMs have failed to follow rules. Michael Brock, when he was head of PFS, made it unequivocally clear that if a GM felt that couldn't follow the rules for PFS, then they shouldn't GM in PFS.

So the issue is about degree. The idea that there are more non-PFS players following the same tighter ruleset than PFS players is farcical.


KingOfAnything wrote:


An optimal situation for Hunt Target includes:
Hunt Target applied before initiative;
Target weakness to ranger's attacks; and
Weapon property that enhances single-target damage.

Let's save the DPR olympics for a few weeks and we can see how different classes and builds stack up in different kinds of fights. For all we know, shield-meta will extend fights to five or six rounds.

(Oh! Hunt Target is helpful against shields because it increases the chances of landing multiple hits in a round).

So in your optimal situation, what is the % damage increase? What is the highest it could be? Or is there not enough information to determine that?


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


An optimal situation for Hunt Target includes:
Hunt Target applied before initiative;
Target weakness to ranger's attacks; and
Weapon property that enhances single-target damage.

Let's save the DPR olympics for a few weeks and we can see how different classes and builds stack up in different kinds of fights. For all we know, shield-meta will extend fights to five or six rounds.

(Oh! Hunt Target is helpful against shields because it increases the chances of landing multiple hits in a round).

So in your optimal situation, what is the % damage increase? What is the highest it could be? Or is there not enough information to determine that?

Until we actually have workable characters and a bestiary, there's in no way sufficient information to do math at the moment.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm not quite sure how to model a shield block in the equation. Any ideas?


N N 959 wrote:
1) "Campaign clarifications" clarify rules that people aren't sure about;

These are rules JUST like the base rules set are and as prone to misunderstanding.

N N 959 wrote:
2) Venture officers can and do make rulings on how the rules are suppose to work;

Venture officers are fallible creatures just like the rest of us: I've seen people state that a venture captain said one thing while another in a different area says different.

N N 959 wrote:
The mandate that GMs follow the rules and run scenarios as written.

This is 100%, totally meaningless in the face of the kinds of 'mistakes', errors and misunderstandings we're talking about. The fact that a PFS officers can change things is pretty much a non factor when you've based your argument on 'you might not know you aren't following the rules.' How does this work if the DM AND the PFS officers are both mistaken? You can't fix something you don't think is working correctly.

N N 959 wrote:
So the issue is about degree.

No, I think it's more about your myopic view of pathfinder and putting an inordinate emphasis while in the same breath discounting other playstyles including the ACTUAL rules set. To you PFS can do no wrong and everyone else is playing in the wild, wild west where everyone either ignores the rules or doesn't know the game well enough to play by them.


KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to model a shield block in the equation. Any ideas?

I would assume that in the optimal situation, there is no shield block.

I'm curious how Paizo is going to reliably parse playtest data when it comes to these mechanics. I'm hoping that they have already done the simulation ands are going to be receptive to feedback about how this modifies/constrains/dictates play style.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
No, I did not. I said I believe that 1 in 200 independent GMs are playing the same rules. Then I said in my experience GMs always make house rules. The former was not based on the latter. I explained that to Graystone already.

If the statement is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make, then why did you make it?

N N 959 wrote:
I find that suprising that you claim to have "no idea." GIiven your obvious intelligence, attention to detail, and predilection for rules discussion, I'm not sure how you can have "no idea."

I have no idea how representative this Forum is of players in general (nor do you, nor does basically anyone). Therefore, I can't readily use any information gathered here to reliably predict things in a way that generalizes to the population of gamers as a whole.

So the precise percentage I wouldn't even guess at.

N N 959 wrote:

Oh wait, so you do have an idea. You just aren't processing the data the way I am. What data?

1) The percentage of rules discussions that result in people talking about their use of house rules on all forums on various different gaming sights.

2) The history and legacy of D&D which essentially advocates that GMs create their own rules

3) The fact that Mark Seifter, in his own forum, has suggested/endorsed house rules in his attempt to assuage people's obvious frustration with 1e rules.

4) The fact that we've already seen Mark talk about acceptable house rules for 2e and it isn't even out yet.

5) The comments from experienced PF GMs who chaff at their inability to house rule in PFS;

The list goes on.

All of this argues that House Rules are common. It argues that they are a normal thing and not some weird never-seen anomaly.

Not a single one is remotely evidence that more than, say, 50% of games outside PFS use House Rules. The simple fact is that something being common enough that it gets talked about and accommodated in no way makes that thing remotely universal. It doesn't even necessarily make it a majority, just a large enough minority that people pay attention.

Men make up only 49% of the world's population (or so), but tend to come up in almost every discussion of laws, society, and the world in general. Your data indicates in no way that people using House Rules are more common among GMs than men are among the world's population.

N N 959 wrote:
So let me clarify something, you've got three GMs who are completely independent from each other, who haven't communicated or agreed on how the rules work, and have all independently come to the exact same ruleset?

I have three GMs who all attempt to use the rules as written. Because people are imperfect, they'll have errors occasionally, but that's in no way the same thing as House Rules, and inevitably happens in PFS as well.

N N 959 wrote:
And then you're going to tell me that you think the are more GMs running that same ruleset than those running PFS?

GMs attempting to run the RAW? Yes. There are more of those than GMs in PFS. It is the most common single way to GM (assuming you count different sets of House Rules separately, which you assuredly should).

N N 959 wrote:
No, it wasn't absurd. But what is utterly absurd is to pretend there are more people playing your version of PF than there are playing PFS. That's utterly absurd on its face.

I'd never claim that. My version of Pathfinder is unique to my games and a 25 page House Rule document.

The RAW version, however, is a lot more common than that, and the primary version I wind up playing as opposed to GMing.

N N 959 wrote:
The "context" of this discussion is on the authoritative value that PFS experiences have over random homebrew. What is abundantly clear is posters in this forum taking umbrage at the notion that PFS experiences are more representative of game balance and flawed mechanics than their individual home games. And that's leaving out an even bigger factor: PFS Scenarios.

A home game is not necessarily 'homebrew' in any meaningful sense. Mine certainly is, what with the House Rules, but a game played by people trying to use the RAW is not. It's a game by the rules as written.

If doing an Adventure Path, many GMs don't even do the kind of alterations for their specific party you go on to suggest.

N N 959 wrote:
One of the main duties of a GM is to tailor the adventure to the party. In PFS, GMs can't do that. Outside of outright fudging dice, there is no allowance for changing DCs or NPCs statistics. PFS scenarios have to be played as written and are intended to be played by random PCs who haven't evolved to compliment each other.

Indeed. This is true. It's utterly irrelevant to the point I'm debating with you, but it's true.

N N 959 wrote:
PFS exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to generate revenue and promote the PF product. There's a mandate to make PFS the most ideal environment for experiencing the PF product given the constraints of organized play. Because of that, it provides the best source of data and information on how the rules interact when compared to home games.

Not necessarily, but this isn't the point I was arguing against and I'm not super interested in getting into it. I posted to dispute the factually inaccurate claim that more than 99% of people not doing PFS used House Rules. Which remains incorrect and ridiculous.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to model a shield block in the equation. Any ideas?
I would assume that in the optimal situation, there is no shield block.

That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I posted to dispute the factually inaccurate claim that more than 99% of people not doing PFS used House Rules. Which remains incorrect and ridiculous.

As you don't know what the % is, you have no idea whether it is correct or not. As such, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.

Personally, I think a damage calculation can neglect shield block in the same way it neglects the enemy taking a five foot step.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
As you don't know what the % is, you have no idea whether it is correct or not. As such, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't know the percentage of adults who drink alcohol either, but it's not 99%. Almost no percentage of people doing any one behavior gets that high and stating one is with no compelling evidence remains utterly unreasonable.


KingOfAnything wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to model a shield block in the equation. Any ideas?
I would assume that in the optimal situation, there is no shield block.
That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.

If the Ranger is only getting three actions, then a move, HT, and shield blocked attack, means you're not getting any attack in the first round as opposed to a non-HT actually getting one.

I'm asking for the optimal damage you can do using HT. You're seem to be avoiding that by insisting we include situations where non-HT damage is diminished. That is a categorically different analysis.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
As you don't know what the % is, you have no idea whether it is correct or not. As such, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't know the percentage of adults who drink alcohol either, but it's not 99%. Almost no percentage of people doing any one behavior gets that high and stating one is with no compelling evidence remains utterly unreasonable.

That's a disanalogy. .5% represents the people doing the same thing. The 99.5% represents people not doing the same thing. It also considers the probability that people are making the same valuation and logical conclusions on pages and pages of game rules, which are hardly rock solid in their instructional clarity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that regardless of how common house rules are or aren't, you help people interested in house ruling the most by having a strong foundation of rules which works in a variety of situations, since a lot of house rules are essentially riffing on or adding to the original rules rules for aesthetic reasons.

It's much easier to make the thing work the way you want it to when the model you're basing it on works to begin with.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.
Personally, I think a damage calculation can neglect shield block in the same way it neglects the enemy taking a five foot step.

N N 959 was asking me to create the most optimal scenario for Hunt Target I could in order to see what the very best possible benefit is. That scenario would include a shield block on the first hit.


KingOfAnything wrote:


N N 959 was asking me to create the most optimal scenario for Hunt Target I could in order to see what the very best possible benefit is. That scenario would include a shield block on the first hit.

You appear to be answering a different question than the one I asked. By analogy, if I ask how much faster can this car go with your new all-terrain tires, a valid answer does not include the competitor's tires getting a flat because of terrain. Doing so is a function of how robust a feat is, not how optimal it is.

it would seem you're attempting to construct a scenario where HT's benefit is the greatest. That's not what I asked. I want to compare HT's optimal performance against the optimal performance against signature combat feats for other classes, like Flurry of Blows or Sneak Attack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.
Personally, I think a damage calculation can neglect shield block in the same way it neglects the enemy taking a five foot step.
N N 959 was asking me to create the most optimal scenario for Hunt Target I could in order to see what the very best possible benefit is. That scenario would include a shield block on the first hit.

Ah, I see what you're going for.

On another note:
"That's a mighty fine third attack bonus you've got there. It would be a shame if someone were to...take a step away."

Seems like beefing up third and second attacks is difficult to balance against intelligent enemies who don't have similar bonuses. If they notice you're a really accurate blender, they could spend actions to bring it back down to a fairer 1 attack versus 1 attack for them.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


N N 959 was asking me to create the most optimal scenario for Hunt Target I could in order to see what the very best possible benefit is. That scenario would include a shield block on the first hit.
it would seem you're attempting to construct a scenario where HT's benefit is the greatest. That's not what I asked. I want to compare HT's optimal performance against the optimal performance against of combat feats for other classes, like Flurry of Blows or Sneak Attack.

How exactly do you expect to compare HT's optimal performance without, you know, calculating its optimal performance situation?

Using an oversimplified model for shield block, I was seeing 33% increased expected damage in a round. The model is biased toward HT, but that is still a lot.


WatersLethe wrote:

On another note:

"That's a mighty fine third attack bonus you've got there. It would be a shame if someone were to...take a step away."

Seems like beefing up third and second attacks is difficult to balance against intelligent enemies who don't have similar bonuses. If they notice you're a really accurate blender, they could spend actions to bring it back down to a fairer 1 attack versus 1 attack for them.

One imagines that "Step Up" in some form still exists, allowing you to step as a reaction when someone steps away. Probably a priority for twf rangers now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
That's a disanalogy. .5% represents the people doing the same thing. The 99.5% represents people not doing the same thing.

Using House Rules is a conscious choice. It is a variation from the base state of the game. A common one, sure, but it's a specific pattern of behavior. The analogy is entirely reasonable.

N N 959 wrote:
It also considers the probability that people are making the same valuation and logical conclusions on pages and pages of game rules, which are hardly rock solid in their instructional clarity.

This is not using House Rules. It's errors and variations in rules interpretations, and yes, due to it, most people probably play slightly different games.

However, none of that is any different in PFS. As I've noted repeatedly. If you count this as 'house rules' then yes, most games use them. Including most PFS games.


graystone wrote:
You can't fix something you don't think is working correctly.

Because PFS is not the same players every week, the behavioral correction is far greater than any home game. At a table of seven random people including the GM, chances are high that someone at the table is aware of the correct rule and promotes it.

Case in in point. My first time playing PFS at the LGS, people were using the wrong rules for partial cover. I had a conversation with the local venture lieutenant and he agreed the local store GMs were using the wrong rule and it was fixed.

So the key concept here: oversight. PFS has it. The community of non-PFS players don't have that in relationship to each other.

Quote:
No, I think it's more about your myopic view of pathfinder and putting an inordinate emphasis while in the same breath discounting other playstyles including the ACTUAL rules set. To you PFS can do no wrong and everyone else is playing in the wild, wild west where everyone either ignores the rules or doesn't know the game well enough to play by them.

I can see how attempting to portray that as reality helps your narrative.

PFS is far from perfect. But the clearly it provides something that non-PFS cannot. For me, that is the elimination of Rule Zero.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

On another note:

"That's a mighty fine third attack bonus you've got there. It would be a shame if someone were to...take a step away."

Seems like beefing up third and second attacks is difficult to balance against intelligent enemies who don't have similar bonuses. If they notice you're a really accurate blender, they could spend actions to bring it back down to a fairer 1 attack versus 1 attack for them.

One imagines that "Step Up" in some form still exists, allowing you to step as a reaction when someone steps away. Probably a priority for twf rangers now.

Without the Attack of Opportunity reaction, they could take a full move away. Monks might never stand and attack, if they can move, flurry, move, for example.

Just saying it's kind of inherently shaky to hitch mechanics to the third attack. I like my idea better!


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Using House Rules is a conscious choice. It is a variation from the base state of the game. A common one, sure, but it's a specific pattern of behavior. The analogy is entirely reasonable.

Choosing to determine how the rules actually work and to play by them is also a conscious choice, far more complex than making a house rule. The path of least resistance favors house ruling. The mindset of the GMing community favors house ruling. Go look on the non-PFS PbP forum musters and see how many GMs insist they play RAW versus those who a priori talk about their house rules. It's an order of magnitude difference. And even those who say they play RAW...don't. I know, I was out there for over a year.

And no, the analogy isn't reasonable. Comparing the percentage of people who choose to drink versus those who choose to house rule in a game whose Rule 0 is the GM can house rule, is a total disanalogy.

N N 959 wrote:
This is not using House Rules. It's errors and variations in rules interpretations, and yes, due to it, most people probably play slightly different games.

Variations in unambiguous rules mandated by your GM are exactly what house rules are.

Quote:
However, none of that is any different in PFS. As I've noted repeatedly. If you count this as 'house rules' then yes, most games use them. Including most PFS games.

It is different than PFS because the entire community is subject to oversight and fosters self-correction. That doesn't happen amongst all the non-PFS groups. So trying to claim that non-PFS GMs have the same or tighter tolerance to RAW than PFS has to its ruleset is, no offense, laughable. And that's only of the players that want to adhere strictly to RAW.

Paizo Employee

KingOfAnything wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to model a shield block in the equation. Any ideas?
I would assume that in the optimal situation, there is no shield block.
That's a pretty poor assumption. An opponent's shield block can negate the ranger's first attack, putting more emphasis on the bonuses for the second and third attack to provide damage.

And from the blocker's perspective, it's still the "right move" to use your shield block reaction against that first attack, since it's still the one most likely to hit you (unless you have enough hit points that you're generally going to take the first hit that bypasses your AC anyways). So HT really is something you'll probably be glad to have available if you're running up against a shield-wielding enemy. If you've taken the enemy by surprised and enter combat with Hunt Target already activated, that also makes the abilities that allow you to share HT benefits with your allies even more valuable, since you're giving up very little of your own action economy to improve everyone else's.


KingOfAnything wrote:
How exactly do you expect to compare HT's optimal performance without, you know, calculating its optimal performance situation?

You are confusing optimal performance with determining how robust something is.

To try an analogy once again, I'm asking how fast can you run the 50 yard dash in your new shows that can't break. I'm not asking what the time differential is between you and someone else whose shoe broke. When someone asks what's the best you can do, that answer isn't based on modifying the test conditions, but on you doing your best. You're attempting to modify the test conditions.

Getting your first attack blocked does not improve HT or the damage it does, so that contradicts the optimal situation. You're attempting to use it because it lowers the damage advantage of others not using HT.

Quote:
Using an oversimplified model for shield block, I was seeing 33% increased expected damage in a round. The model is biased toward HT, but that is still a lot.

Fine, using your biased situation, if I can sneak attack or flurry of blows in that same scenario, we'd see an increase of what?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Choosing to determine how the rules actually work and to play by them is also a conscious choice, far more complex than making a house rule. The path of least resistance favors house ruling. The mindset of the GMing community favors house ruling. Go look on the non-PFS PbP forum musters and see how many GMs insist they play RAW versus those who a priori talk about their house rules. It's an order of magnitude difference. And even those who say they play RAW...don't. I know, I was out there for over a year.

Again, using this Forum as evidence has this issue where it's not necessarily super representative. Also, we're back to you using personal anecdotes to back your point when you said you weren't doing that. Which is bad. The plural of anecdote is not data.

N N 959 wrote:
Variations in the rules mandated by your GM are exactly what house rules are.

No. Intentional variations are House Rules. Unintentional ones the GM apologizes for and alters when they realize them are mistakes.

N N 959 wrote:
It is different than PFS because the entire community is subject to oversight and fosters self-correction. That doesn't happen amongst all the non-PFS groups.

Yes it does. I've both corrected other people (including the GM) on rules and been corrected (including when I was GMing). This is a thing that happens.

N N 959 wrote:
So trying to claim that non-PFS GMs have the same or tighter tolerance to RAW than PFS has to its ruleset is, no offense, laughable. And that's only of the players that want to adhere strictly to RAW.

My point is not that they are held to a 'tighter standard'. My point is that screwing a rule up is not a House Rule and claiming it is confuses everything.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Again, using this Forum as evidence has this issue where it's not necessarily super representative. Also, we're back to you using personal anecdotes to back your point when you said you weren't doing that. Which is bad. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Years worth of searching PbP game forums for games played using RAW is absolutely data.

Quote:
Yes it does. I've both corrected other people (including the GM) on rules and been corrected (including when I was GMing). This is a thing that happens.

You're correcting games local to you. There is little to no community feedback to other non-PFS home games. A Venture officer corrects a regional misinterpretation of a rule and that's propagated to everyone in the region. I can, and have, referenced rules corrections and had GMs abide by them against their original ruling.

Quote:
My point is not that they are held to a 'tighter standard'. My point is that screwing a rule up is not a House Rule and claiming it is confuses everything.

You're arguing semantics. Whether you screw it up, or intentionally changing, is irrelevant. You're not playing the same game as someone else. While that happens in PFS, there are mechanisms, and more importantly, an ethos, to correct it that the non-PFS community does not have.

Bottom line, if you don't think it's .5%, that's fine. I can live with that. Let's move on.


N N 959 wrote:
As such, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think we do: I can clearly see which side is right.

N N 959 wrote:
Because PFS is not the same players every week, the behavioral correction is far greater than any home game.

I know for a fact, not every PFS game is a random group of people. As such, that's eating into your percentages.

N N 959 wrote:
At a table of seven random people including the GM, chances are high that someone at the table is aware of the correct rule and promotes it.

And if the venture captain has it wrong? How likely is it then?

N N 959 wrote:
Case in in point. My first time playing PFS at the LGS, people were using the wrong rules for partial cover. I had a conversation with the local venture lieutenant and he agreed the local store GMs were using the wrong rule and it was fixed.

Can you prove you both weren't mistaken? We are talking about unintentional errors.

N N 959 wrote:
So the key concept here: oversight.

I can't see this as a boon. I've seen a venture come on these boards, be proven wrong and refuse to change their mind unless a dev came in to correct them. :P

N N 959 wrote:
The community of non-PFS players don't have that in relationship to each other.

Not true. You're ON that community.

N N 959 wrote:
But the clearly it provides something that non-PFS cannot.

It provided a means for those without their own groups an opportunity to play. The same thing can be said from play by post, games at game stores, ect.

N N 959 wrote:
Years worth of searching PbP game forums for games played using RAW is absolutely data.

LOL My years of PbP disagree with your yours.

N N 959 wrote:
A Venture officer corrects a regional misinterpretation of a rule

This works both ways. When they are wrong, an entire region is wrong.

N N 959 wrote:
You're arguing semantics.

Words matter when you are trying to communicate our point. In this case, you ARE using the words wrong. If you keep doing that, people will continue to misunderstand you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
You're arguing semantics. Whether you screw it up, or intentionally changing, is irrelevant. You're not playing the same game as someone else.

If you redefine 'House Rules' to cover all rules mistakes, then sure, everyone has them. In extraordinarily minor and non-game impacting ways for the most part.

And PFS may have less such errors per capita, but it's not only 1% as many, and that's what it would need to be for more people to be playing PFS 'correctly' if 50% of people outside of PFS do intentional House Rules.

That's not a correct or reasonable number, and it's very much the one in question.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
How exactly do you expect to compare HT's optimal performance without, you know, calculating its optimal performance situation?

You are confusing optimal performance with determining how robust something is.

To try an analogy once again, I'm asking how fast can you run the 50 yard dash in your new shows that can't break. I'm not asking what the time differential is between you and someone else whose shoe broke. When someone asks what's the best you can do, that answer isn't based on modifying the test conditions, but on you doing your best. You're attempting to modify the test conditions.

Getting your first attack blocked does not improve HT or the damage it does, so that contradicts the optimal situation. You're attempting to use it because it lowers the damage advantage of others not using HT.

No. If you want to know the best something can do for you, you put it in the most favorable conditions. That gives you the damage spike and you can work back to average benefit from there.

Using your analogy, I'm changing the course, not the competition. It just so happens the ranger's rugged trail shoes give him a bigger speed boost on uneven, rocky terrain than on the running track and the monk's barefoot running shoes and the fighter's sneakers don't give as much benefit.

Quote:
Quote:
Using an oversimplified model for shield block, I was seeing 33% increased expected damage in a round. The model is biased toward HT, but that is still a lot.
Fine, using your biased situation, if I can sneak attack or flurry of blows in that same scenario, we'd see an increase of what?

At the same chance to hit, a monk flurrying sees an increase of 17% damage over not flurrying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, sometimes people house rule without being up front about it. Ex: a GM might ban the summoner, but it won't come up until someone tries to play one.


Mark Seifter has been trying to defend Hunt Target as a long-term investment against taking down an enemy, but I just cannot see the value in it. I have seen nothing so far that suggests that 2e combat does not reward a good alpha strike, and Hunt Target undermines an alpha strike. A weapon-user ideally wants to move and then attack twice during their first turn, while focusing fire together with the party against a single opponent. Why consume an action on Hunt Target when the idea is for the party to collectively neutralize a key target ASAP?

I could see this being ideal when a ranger gets to ambush something, but otherwise, it takes too many turns from the ranger for it to break even.

Someone suggested that Hunt Target should usable when the ranger identifies the tracks or presence of a creature, or otherwise gains confirmation of a creature's presence in the area. I think that would be a thematic expansion of Hunt Target's niche.

As it currently stands, Hunt Target works best when the party is fighting a singular opponent that will take a long time to go down, and the party can afford to stand still and chip away at the solo enemy.


Hunt target is best used with a bow, not melee. You can always get a full attack because you don't have to move. It also works best before combat starts.

It does work in an ambush at least, so it does have use and it fits with the name hunt target.

As long as they don't think it's a great feature and not give the ranger other things it's fine


It is true that Hunt Target is better with a ranged weapon than with melee attacks (a disparity that should probably be addressed so as to make melee rangers equally appealing), but even for a ranged ranger, I am skeptical that Hunt Target is worth the action for an enemy that will go down in one or two rounds.

An archer ranger will still probably want to move on their first turn, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless, PFS doesn't use RAW insofar as the rules are presented in the published material (well, those not intended for PFS) - hence them having their own documents.

It is possible that this will change when the new edition hits, but it seems like a decidedly bad idea.

201 to 235 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion