Pigeonholing Rangers

[Qstor]

So archers are now fighters and rangers are two weapon fighting and crossbow users?

Ranger should be opened up to add more weapon choices. I loved in Advanced Players Guide where the ranger archetype opened up weapon choices for rangers from archery and two weapon fighting in the Core Rulebook.

[Lavieh]

I don't really see how Ranger is tied to just Crossbow because they get a feat or too that support it. You could easily roll with a composite bow. No support for two handed weapons is a little offputting.

Overall rangers just seem super weak though. They are mostly skilled but their actual impact on combat seems relatively low. The Animal companion path also seems really weak when you compare it to what the Druids get.

[Bardarok]

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise. If you pick crossbow or two weapon fighting you need the feats to stay competitive since those don't work well with you main ability. Or at least I think that was their design goal. I am not sure how hunt Target will work out in play.

[Lavieh]

I think you run into an issue where the feats are just generally weaker at that point. Looking at it now you could definitely just do single handed weapon fighting and/ or switching between a bow and another weapon for your combat.

Looking at the Feats now there is also a huge problem with Triple Threat requiring three feats to be usable and none of them really work together.

You go

- Use an Action to give your ally hunt target.
- Pick two Hunt targets
- Now you can Pick two, or Pick one and give it to an ally
- Now you can pick one target and two allies or two targets and one ally.

I really think Shadowhunter is probably the best feat for level 20, but still why waste so much space?

[ermak_umk3]

Not terribly excited at the way the ranger is being handled
It feels incomplete somehow
It seems to force a focus on combat, companion or snares but you pretty much have to neglect the rest outright
They get snares instead of magic but those come online late :( 4 to start & 8 for combat viability I was all for this change, as I tended to play a trapper ranger, it just isn't popping
I have been spoiled by combat options available in pf1 so the few bonuses to crossbows & twf just seem meh compared to a set of feats free for almost any style you could want once you factored in ones for worshipers of specific gods (I know this gripes on me like I said spoiled)
The additional animal companion stuff is neat, stacking with hunted target for bonuses is nice
The situational bonuses are gone but I mostly used them for background story rather than a real combat mechanism
As a ranger player since 3.0 I just feel underwhelmed
The fighter, rogue, & monk all felt like they got a bit buffed but the ranger just feels less... even when compared to the DnD 5.0 ranger

[N N 959]

ermak_umk3 wrote:

Not terribly excited at the way the ranger is being handled

It feels incomplete somehow
It seems to force a focus on combat, companion or snares but you pretty much have to neglect the rest outright
They get snares instead of magic but those come online late :( 4 to start & 8 for combat viability I was all for this change, as I tended to play a trapper ranger, it just isn't popping
I have been spoiled by combat options available in pf1 so the few bonuses to crossbows & twf just seem meh compared to a set of feats free for almost any style you could want once you factored in ones for worshipers of specific gods (I know this gripes on me like I said spoiled)
The additional animal companion stuff is neat, stacking with hunted target for bonuses is nice
The situational bonuses are gone but I mostly used them for background story rather than a real combat mechanism
As a ranger player since 3.0 I just feel underwhelmed
The fighter, rogue, & monk all felt like they got a bit buffed but the ranger just feels less... even when compared to the DnD 5.0 ranger

I feel you. The loss of spells is huge in terms fo the Ranger's versatility. There's nothing in the playtest that recaptures this benefit for Rangers.

It occurs to me that in order to play P2 and enjoy it, we have to pretend P1 never existed. We're not getting the P1 Ranger and we just have to decide if the P2 Ranger is fun to play compared to the other options.

[BeatenPinata]

I was building a Goblin Ranger with a plan to ride a wolf as a mount and either snipe from its back or eventually ride up and get flanking bonuses at later levels.

The ranger Animal Companion not getting the free one action at later levels slows this down some but trading an action for the 40ft movement of the wolf isn't too bad of a trade.

This seems pretty doable, though repetitive. No unique and cool feats to make use of, especially if you want to take the companion feats.

Also, does a level one wolf companion have 7hp and 13ac? This seems frighteningly fragile for something that is supposed to fight with me. I thought maybe I was supposed to add my class hp as well?

[N N 959]

BeatenPinata wrote:

Also, does a level one wolf companion have 7hp and 13ac? This seems frighteningly fragile for something that is supposed to fight with me. I thought maybe I was supposed to add my class hp as well?

Quote:

Hit Points

Your animal companion has ancestry Hit Points from its type, plus a number of Hit Points for each of your levels equal to 6 plus its Constitution modifier.

The wolf starts with 6 and then gets 6 for a level 1 PC= 12. I think there is some info missing. The entry for the wolf says "Abilities: Dex,Con" I'm under the impression that this means the animal gets +2 Dex/Con boost to start. If not, I don't know why that entry is there.

The Armor Class would be +1 as the animal is only Trained in unarmored defense so a total of 11. If there is an AC boost, it goes up to 12, and goes up +1 with every level.

[BeatenPinata]

N N 959 wrote:

BeatenPinata wrote:

Also, does a level one wolf companion have 7hp and 13ac? This seems frighteningly fragile for something that is supposed to fight with me. I thought maybe I was supposed to add my class hp as well?

Quote:

Hit Points

Your animal companion has ancestry Hit Points from its type, plus a number of Hit Points for each of your levels equal to 6 plus its Constitution modifier.

The wolf starts with 6 and then gets 6 for a level 1 PC= 12. I think there is some info missing. The entry for the wolf says "Abilities: Dex,Con" I'm under the impression that this means the animal gets +2 Dex/Con boost to start. If not, I don't know why that entry is there.

The Armor Class would be +1 as the animal is only Trained in unarmored defense so a total of 11. If there is an AC boost, it goes up to 12, and goes up +1 with every level.

Thank you! I missed that.

I got the AC by adding Trained Proficiency with what I thought the Dex mod would be.

Do you think the Dex/Con boost is to the ability score or the ability modifier? The base stats are listed as modifiers so I’d be inclined to say the latter.

[N N 959]

Ah. I think it's an ability modifier of 1, since NPCs don't seem to have stat blocks. I didn't catch that until you mentioned it.

[Folkish Elm]

N N 959 wrote:

Ah. I think it's an ability modifier of 1, since NPCs don't seem to have stat blocks. I didn't catch that until you mentioned it.

This is correct and confirmed in the Companion Types paragraph on p284. Hope that helps. :)

[Qstor]

Bardarok wrote:

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise.

Yeah but the class feasts seem limited to crossbows or TWF. That's my beef with it.

[Bardarok]

Qstor wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise.

Yeah but the class feasts seem limited to crossbows or TWF. That's my beef with it.

But if they had feats for bows on top of hunt Target working better with it every ranger would be pigeonholed into bows because it would be undeniably better than crossbows.

[sherlock1701]

Bardarok wrote:

Qstor wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise.

Yeah but the class feasts seem limited to crossbows or TWF. That's my beef with it.

But if they had feats for bows on top of hunt Target working better with it every ranger would be pigeonholed into bows because it would be undeniably better than crossbows.

This could be fixed by making crossbows inherently better. There's a reason why most nations switched away from standard bows. Crossbows are easier to use effectively and can punch through armor better. Obviously the game partially reflects the first bit with making them simple weapons, but they could use some buffs to make them more accurate and useful.

[kaid]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Qstor wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise.

Yeah but the class feasts seem limited to crossbows or TWF. That's my beef with it.

But if they had feats for bows on top of hunt Target working better with it every ranger would be pigeonholed into bows because it would be undeniably better than crossbows.

This could be fixed by making crossbows inherently better. There's a reason why most nations switched away from standard bows. Crossbows are easier to use effectively and can punch through armor better. Obviously the game partially reflects the first bit with making them simple weapons, but they could use some buffs to make them more accurate and useful.

The big reason nations switched was ease of use. You could train peasent rabble to be combat effective with them in a minimal time and it did not require any large amounts of strength to use. A long bow was a skill that took years to master and large amounts of upper body strength. Crossbows you could give joe schmoe a 2 week training period of how to march and line up and basic commands and expect them to be able to fire at an acceptable rate while pointed at the enemy. The flatter trajectory also made learning to aim them.

[Bardarok]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Qstor wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Their main ability Hunt Target works better for bows and single weapon fighting already so they don't really need bow or two handed weapon feats. If you pick one of those styles congratulations you can feel free to to pick up some of more eclectic feats you're already gtg combat-wise.

Yeah but the class feasts seem limited to crossbows or TWF. That's my beef with it.

But if they had feats for bows on top of hunt Target working better with it every ranger would be pigeonholed into bows because it would be undeniably better than crossbows.

This could be fixed by making crossbows inherently better. There's a reason why most nations switched away from standard bows. Crossbows are easier to use effectively and can punch through armor better. Obviously the game partially reflects the first bit with making them simple weapons, but they could use some buffs to make them more accurate and useful.

True. But I think their design philosophy is to avoid the dueling feat chains. So if there were bow and crossbow options everyone would need to take one of those at every point they were available to stay viable, just like in PF 1. As is if you take a common fighting style aka bow you get to spend your feats on other things, hunt target sharing maybe animal companion or trapping stuff, increasing your width but not your DPR. If you choose an uncommon fighting style, crossbows, you need to spend your feats on that style to bring yourself up to speed. It makes both character options viable while giving incentive to choose bows over crossbows without making a bow ranger flat out better than a crossbow ranger in DPR.

[Secret Wizard]

mighty morphin pigeonholin' rangers

[Warmagon]

kaid wrote:

The big reason nations switched was ease of use. You could train peasent rabble to be combat effective with them in a minimal time and it did not require any large amounts of strength to use. A long bow was a skill that took years to master and large amounts of upper body strength. Crossbows you could give joe schmoe a 2 week training period of how to march and line up and basic commands and expect them to be able to fire at an acceptable rate while pointed at the enemy. The flatter trajectory also made learning to aim them.

Weren't crossbowmen often a part of noted mercenary units?

From wikipedia
Crossbowmen occupied a high status as professional soldiers and often earned higher pay than other foot soldiers.[82] The rank of the commanding officer of crossbowmen corps was one of the highest positions in many medieval armies, including those of Spain, France, and Italy. Crossbowmen were held in such high regard in Spain that they were granted status on par with the knightly class.
--------------------------

So while the crossbow was a lot more usable than bows without extensive training and muscle development, its use by professional forces and fairly high status would suggest that people saw virtues in its use beyond being for "peasant rabble."