| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to biuild what I think of as a fairly classic fantasy trope character, and having problems seeing what class I am looking for. (With the caveat that I am not that good at looking at the higher level builds, so some of the problems may be sorted later on, and I haven't realised it.)
So, elf, lightly armoured and fast moving. Good at sneaking through the undergrowth and popping out to shoot people, then disappearing again. Good in natural surroundings, less comfortable around cities.
In previous games I've played this as ranger, 3.5 scout, Inquisitor and cleric.
Version 1 is a ranger, but the feats default to crossbow and TWF, and given that the volley property doesn't work well with the size of most battlemats, it feels like longbows are really sub-par.
Version 2 is a rogue, which works a bit better, but suffers from the volley issue. She looks OK with a shortbow, but that's not quite the flavour I am after. On the plus side you get all the skills and then some more.
Version 3 is a fighter, who can sort the dreaded volley issue, eventually, but has has lots of class abilities related to heavy armour, which run counter to the the swift & sneaky concept.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully in the final version the Ranger will get archery stuff and fit this niche perfectly.
In the meantime, you could go Ranger and then Multiclass into Fighter. This wastes a single Feat on Fighter Dedication, but thereafter lets you cherry pick Fighter Archery options pretty decently. It gets you Point Blank Shot (to ignore the Volley penalty) at 4th level, which is later than would be ideal, but not impossible.
The progression is something like this, in terms of Class Feats:
1: Animal Companion
2: Fighter Dedication
4: Basic Maneuver (Point Blank Shot)
6: Full Grown Companion
8: Advanced Maneuver (Double Shot)
10: Camouflage
12 & 14: Any two of Advanced Maneuver (Triple Shot), Distracting Shot, and Incredible Companion.
16: One of Advanced Maneuver (Slippery Shooter), Greater Distracting Shot, and Specialized Companion
You could skip the Animal Companion stuff for other Ranger stuff if you wanted, I basically just thought it looked cool, and provided a solid option.
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd, but I think the full breakdown is useful.
|
Yeah, an Elven Ranger has always been my preferred choice and, to be honest, I was pretty disappointed with the PF2 Ranger...a crossbow feat and no standard bow feat was a surprise. But then they took they pretty much made the longbow (my favorite weapon) obsolete; the volley penalty will pretty much dissuade anyone from using it. In combat situations with my current ranged PCs, the overwhelming majority of my ranged attacks has been less than 50 feet...why would anyone choose a weapon that will penalizes you with -2 mod for most of your combat rolls? I know some will say just use a shortbow instead but it does less damage and then, when you do have need for a little longer shot, you'll have the range penalties...
Wasn't impressed with the options for Ranger feats at first level for a Ranger using a standard bow...with the aforementioned Crossbow feat, it looks like I'll be taking the Animal Companion...it isn't bad but the combat perks appear aimed at melee fighters...
I've already made an Elven Ranger for the upcoming playtest...I'm trying to keep an open mind so hopefully it'll play out better than what I'm expecting...but I'm not optimistic...
Otha, please let us know how your play test goes.
A Fighter can do much of this, and I think the 16 Str to MC Fighter is too high a cost.
Example Elf.
Str 14 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 10
Starts w/ Expert Perception.
Skills: Survival, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, (+likely a Lore from Background)
Since Str is only 1/2 a buff for bows, I might even go
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 14 Cha 10
That should be enough (or more) to cover Elf skills, and you have a good Wis for Perc. After the first stat boost (or with 16/12 or 12/16 Int/Wis), a Dedication Feat could unlock some cool "elfin" Cantrips too or even domain/school abilities that suit.
The only downside I see is not utilizing the heavy armor features and capping some Elf skills at expert in late game.
Yes, please, give the Ranger a first level bow related feat! Make the lightly armored, stealthy archer concept possible right from the very start of an adventurer's career!
Many thanks!
Well, it is possible. It's just a fighter now.
---
But in general I agree with several of the statements in this thread. The ranger is overly specific and somewhat... pointless.
Most of the PF2 classes are fairly broad and can handle several concepts. The ranger narrows all the way down to specific weapon types and a very specific (and bad) set of gear gimmicks (snares), and otherwise duplicates fighter and rogue pretty poorly.
It's my first suggestion for overhaul and revision, followed by alchemist and paladin.
Sorcerer needs some clean up, but the concept and framework is strong.
I like a Longbow user with an Animal Companion, you don't care that much about Volley because your pet can drag them away.
Not sure how a pet would drag something in these rules. How far can it drag? How does it go about doing it?
Shove move things 5 or 10 feet. Grapple seems to just keep things in place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the face of it this seems like classic overcorrection. Bows were a no brainer in 1E over crossbows due to faster loading and better action economy
Removing feat support, reducing damage and adding further penalties for close range are attempts to balance that go too far the other direction
Also is there anyone out there who can help me understand why a longbow is less accurate from close range. Isn’t target shooting typically made harder by moving the targets further away. Not closer...
I'll wager that the final version will include more General feats and Point Blank Shot will be among them. I have heard time believing some form of Many Shot and Rapid Shot are permanently gone as well.
The three action system basically makes them pointless. Monster hunt is supposed to partially absorb those feats.
Plus fighters got double and triple shot.
Though I won't be surprised if an 'agile' ranged weapon pops up at some point. Probably an 'elf bow' or some such rot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter can do much of this, and I think the 16 Str to MC Fighter is too high a cost.
Just a quick note, but it's 16 STR or 16 DEX, which the archer should be alright for.
But on the whole, yeah. I get what they were going for in some of the areas. Like wanting to make sure that their Iconic ranger wasn't complete garbage (only mostly garbage, because Crossbow ace is not very good), or wanting the fighter to keep some of the combat feats to themselves, so as not to be the worse version of whatever build. But I'd have far rather seen them try to accomplish the latter with stuff like Advanced Weapon and Armor training benefits, not limiting combat styles. Also, the restriction on heavy armor, for proficiency increases for fighter (and also paladin, but that's a reasonable, if perhaps too conceptually limiting, restriction, and they at least can eventually get up to master with light armor), is baffling.
I'm actually turning around a lot on 2e, the more I think about it. I was, and still am, positive on a lot of things, but I think if 2e is going to work, they need to build a broader base of concepts that can fall into their classes. Between limiting combat styles to certain classes, and signature skills, and stuff like that, I'm getting less and less excited for 2e. Maybe it's a space thing, since they have technical limitations, based on their printer I seem to recall, on just how much can go into their hardcovers, but what that says to me is that I'd rather see a return to the PHB/GMG system (or the CRB Part 1/Part 2, that systems like HERO and GURPS)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am currently playing an Eldritch archer, and I am too attacking from less than 50 feet most of the time (the only exceptions being against flying ennemies). Since you do not want to be separated from your group (as an archer you tend to be mediocre in close range combat and an ennemy could attack you while your comrades cannot help you), you are really not likely to stay 50 feet away from your cleric or your melee fighter.
I think longbows already suffer from not having their damages scale with your strength/dexterity and requiring both hands to use. The volley trait is way too harsh. It would at least need to be downed to Volley 5 or Volley 10, or else it may lose its title as favored martial ranged weapon, and this title would go to the crossbow (which is a simple ranged weapon, and thus should be less powerful).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Volley is just bizarre on numerous counts.
1) Why "Volley"? It doesn't mean anything like "bad at short range". It means either a series of shots discharged at one time (aka Manyshot or Rapid Shot from 1e) or hitting something like a tennis ball before it touches the ground. Seems like they couldn't find an appropriate word for a phenomenon that doesn't exist IRL so they threw a dart at the dictionary.
2) I've used a longbow (once). It takes a lot of strength but I could hit a target 40 feet away quite easily. It certainly wouldn't have been easier if it were 15 feet further away.
3) For some reason it applies only to longbows.
4) Impossible Volley (feat) allows you to shoot lots of opponents in one go with a longbow (only) if they're more than 50 feet away. Why not a shortbow? Why 50 feet?
5) Point Blank Shot gives you +2 to hit within the first range increment unless longbow in why case complicated rule which essentially means the same thing, max 50 feet.
It's a pointless ugly kludge. If Paizo want a bow to reflect its real disadvantages, try these:
1) A longbow is long and really clumsy. It should be very hard to use it in melee - vastly harder than a thrown weapon.
2) Bows don't respond well to damage. A small nick in the back of a bow can turn into a loud SNAP and a piece of wood whacking the archer in the face.
3) Stringing a composite bow is not easy. Major plot point in the Odyssey.
4) Reloading a crossbow in melee is...impossible. Maybe a hand crossbow, but not a proper one. See, for example, Tod on Youtube for some idea (lots of good stuff here).
5) Arrows are really bulky, and their (feather) flights need care or they'll lose accuracy. And you can't use a longbow arrow properly with a shortbow, or vice versa. Crossbow quarrels are much more convenient and robust, not least because the flights are typically wood or leather.
...which is even more pointlessly complicated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if the problem is everybody uses longbow, and nobody uses shortbow unless they only get proficiency in shortbow, a la Rogue, why not just give shortbows something neat? Like, for example, Agile? Sure, that sounds nonsensical, but that's only because of the term Agile. All it really means is, you have to worry less about recoil and draw time, and can fire quickly pretty easily. If you removed the volley penalty from Longbow, gave Shortbow Agile, and called it a day, at least it would be a question as to which is better.
Incidentally, I think with Volley they were thinking of indirect fire, the way Longbowmen in warfare would fire up at an angle, so the shots would come down on the enemy. I don't see how that translates to a penalty at close range, but I think that's what they were thinking of.
Also, why don't Crossbows get Deadly? I would think it's a perfect fit for them, much more than for bows. Any thoughts on how Fatal compares to Deadly? Crossbows should get whichever of the two is better, and bows get the lesser one.
(Okay, third try, this website keeps refreshing the page mid type and I am gonna have to use note pad just to post if this keeps up)
The issue at hand, that seems to be plaguing the system for situations like this is the mistaken implementation of the traits system. In theory the system is highly utilizable for creating unique weapon attributes to distinguish weapon qualities, and while I would have implemented it differently myself, it is still a highly useful tool... except its being used for the wrong reason: Balance.
To clarify, the Volley trait itself is actually accurate in terminology, as it refers to the fact that you have to arc high for a shot (or Volley it) to hit a target accurately at distance. This hinders the effectiveness of it at short range, as arrows actually sway wildly in the air (Watch slow motion videos if you want to see how you can miss an apple at 5 feet straight on) due to the way an arrow draws around the bow. This leads to a simple archery conundrum for short range mobile shooting, which two of the following three do you need: Accuracy, Rate of Fire, or Power? The implementation is bad here, as they chose the easiest to gain of the three as the weakness of the trait, accuracy, as accuracy and rate of fire and accuracy and power as pairs are far easier than fire rate and power combined. The trait should have offered the players two options, take a two action shot for full strength or single shots with no strength bonus applied, not accuracy penalty. Thus feats could gain more rate of fire and/or power applied to each shot for shorter periods.
Bows are not the only piece of equipment this rings true for but I do not intend to go too far off topic. As for why crossbows do not get deadly, in reality it comes form the issues of bolt tumble, lack of weight, and penetration at range (At less than 30 feet they should have deadly due to power penetration at that range).
(Edit)
For clarity sake I want to note, I am talking from a real world physics standpoint, and actually I am not quite sure under what constraints, outside of balance the developers chose the traits they did in many cases.
|
Honestly at this point i don't see the use of the ranger class anymore, it's only a bastardized fighter with a single trick based on studying the target and forgoing one attack each round...
Also what's the idiocy of short range penalties on bows?!
between these issues and the stripping of casting from the ranger I've lost already 2 playtesters before even starting...
Yes, this is a good point. I am actually an archer, I hunt Elk in the Cascades in WA state with a bow. The closer that elk is the better.
Yes, this is a good point. I am actually an archer, I hunt Elk in the Cascades in WA state with a bow. The closer that elk is the better.Honestly at this point i don't see the use of the ranger class anymore, it's only a bastardized fighter with a single trick based on studying the target and forgoing one attack each round...
Also what's the idiocy of short range penalties on bows?!
between these issues and the stripping of casting from the ranger I've lost already 2 playtesters before even starting...
I practiced archery and went bow hunting with my grandfather for a few years, so you are quite correct, but the distinction is about movement and quick rate firing, but not slow steady accuracy. Remember, these are roughly 2 second draws with a classic recurve bow of oak or yew. Anachronistic issues occur as a result, as most modern bows are both compound structure (pulley based) and composite material to allow for a nitch guide (The divot where you nock the bow) instead of the wave firing around a single arch pulled recurve, and these heavily impact the distinctions here. To clarify though, I am only noting there are severe differences, but not sure why they chose accuracy as the penalty and not damage or fire rate.
I'd go with rogue with fighter dedication so you can pickup the fighter archery feats. You may want to consider being adopted by goblins as well in order to pickup very sneaky.
|
|
I practiced archery and went bow hunting with my grandfather for a few years, so you are quite correct, but the distinction is about movement and quick rate firing, but not slow steady accuracy. Remember, these are roughly 2 second draws with a classic recurve bow of oak or yew. Anachronistic issues occur as a result, as most modern bows are both compound structure (pulley based) and composite material to allow for a nitch guide (The divot where you nock the bow) instead of the wave firing around a single arch pulled recurve, and these heavily impact the distinctions here. To clarify though, I am only noting there are severe differences, but not sure why they chose accuracy as the penalty and not damage or fire rate.Yes, this is a good point. I am actually an archer, I hunt Elk in the Cascades in WA state with a bow. The closer that elk is the better.Honestly at this point i don't see the use of the ranger class anymore, it's only a bastardized fighter with a single trick based on studying the target and forgoing one attack each round...
Also what's the idiocy of short range penalties on bows?!
between these issues and the stripping of casting from the ranger I've lost already 2 playtesters before even starting...
I must admit that you are correct. I hunt elk with what would be considered a shortbow (more or less). I have no experience hunting with the Type of Longbow described in Pathfinder. There is talk that they may remove volley, and then add agile to the shortbow, this seems like a good adjustment. After listening to Pathfinder Friday Jason made a good point about the Longbow.
I see a patern with ranger in recent years
D&D 3.0 - ranger sucks
D&D 3.5/PF1 - ranger is good class
D&D 5e - ranger sucks
D&D 5e UA rework - ranger is a good class
PF2 playtest - ranger sucks
PF2 release - we will see if pattern continues...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly the new elven ranger is a Halfling ranger with a Sling staff (1d10, propulsive). Highly accurate, no volley restriction, bit of damage bump, and can reload on the move (at 4th level, I think).
Bilbo is the new Legolas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a patern with ranger in recent years
D&D 3.0 - ranger sucks
D&D 3.5/PF1 - ranger is good class
D&D 5e - ranger sucks
D&D 5e UA rework - ranger is a good class
PF2 playtest - ranger sucksPF2 release - we will see if pattern continues...
+D&D 4e - rangers are murder gods
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+D&D 4e - rangers are murder godsI see a patern with ranger in recent years
D&D 3.0 - ranger sucks
D&D 3.5/PF1 - ranger is good class
D&D 5e - ranger sucks
D&D 5e UA rework - ranger is a good class
PF2 playtest - ranger sucksPF2 release - we will see if pattern continues...
Hehe, my 1st character in 4E was a ranger :p
But, 4E is a good game, better when +1/2 per level removed.
But never felt like "real" D&D.
And ranger there didn't feel like a ranger, rather like a attack machinegun.
It was like 3.5e fighter