| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about some complex hybrid class using bits from 10 different books.
I'm talking a basic Rogue who dual wields short swords OR a Ranger focused on using a longbow.
Almost all of the feats that boost these styles are Fighter only. Why?
|
Paladins who want to play any style that's not heavy armor sword & board are my current frustration.
This seems inevitable in the current class system.
One possible solution would be to create a pool of basic combat feats that any character could select as class or general feats. As it is, a ranged Paladin has the unappealing option of taking Fighter dedication (granting her nothing) and then spending additional fighter multiclass feats to get see basic stuff. Why not let the basics be available to anyone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you say “rogue who dual-wields short swords,” are you talking about physically not being able to pick up and attack with two weapons, or do you mean gaining an extra attack each round for a large penalty on all attacks?
I believe a ranger can still focus on and do quite well with a longbow, but i’m guessing you mean extra feats that boost bows specifically?
Paladins who want to play any style that's not heavy armor sword & board are my current frustration.
This seems inevitable in the current class system.
One possible solution would be to create a pool of basic combat feats that any character could select as class or general feats. As it is, a ranged Paladin has the unappealing option of taking Fighter dedication (granting her nothing) and then spending additional fighter multiclass feats to get see basic stuff. Why not let the basics be available to anyone?
I will take a closer look at it, but I think the 16 Dex paladin is only worse at light armor proficiency than the 18 dex fighter by 1 until level 5, and then by one again at level 10 until level 13. At level 13 they tie it up again at 15 (if max boosting dex) and then get better at 17 again until it is tied again at level 20. With a shield or a weapon that parries, these builds still going to be the best defenders in the game at high levels and actually have decent Ref saves to boot.
In PF1 you couldn't be an archer without taking all the archery feats I think they want to move away from that in PF2.
For example the ranger doesn't have point blank shot but they get hunt target which gives the greatest benefit to a ranger using a bow since that is the one who will be getting the most iterative attacks. They have feats for dual wielding and crossbows because those styles don't take advantage of hunt target particularly well and need feat support to be viable. If the ranger had access to point blank shot as well it would make archery the undisputed best option for a ranger and would make a crossbow, dual wielding, or single weapon wielding ranger a trap option.
Rogue is more of a problem though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, they make sure that the Fighter gets the Barbarian's Sudden Charge feat, I'm at a loss for how and why they decided that only Fighters should be good archers or TWF types.
As for the ranger and the long bow, the ranger's range limit on hunt target is a big problem for making a decent archer ranger with a long bow. You certainly are going to have to MC into fighter and get point blank shot. This seems like a pretty deliberate decision on the part of the developers rather than an oversight or product of limited development. I am not sold on Hunter's target personally, but it does feel like the ranger's core class feature is at odds with a long bow.
EDIT: I was wrong, I thought the hunt target ability had a range of 50ft. At 100 ft it should work fine with the bow. Point blank shot might be too good for a archery ranger if they can take it with one feat though so it might be the case that the archery ranger just needs some other mobility or perception related feat to compensate.
When you say “rogue who dual-wields short swords,” are you talking about physically not being able to pick up and attack with two weapons, or do you mean gaining an extra attack each round for a large penalty on all attacks?
I believe a ranger can still focus on and do quite well with a longbow, but i’m guessing you mean extra feats that boost bows specifically?
A rogue can hold two shortswords, obviously, but seems to gain absolutely no benefit from it that I can see and is worse off than a rogue who has a free hand.
The Ranger just has to eat the volley penalty (and a whole lot of fights happen where it's very difficult to get outside of that range) it seems, unless I'm missing something?
I think the issue with the dual wielding rogue is that it would instantly become the best two-weapon fighter in the game because it would be getting a +4 damage from finesse strike and when it gets sneak attack it would be delivering complete obliteration. You can still build to getting double slice, but it takes some feats to get there at least.
I mean, they make sure that the Fighter gets the Barbarian's Sudden Charge feat, I'm at a loss for how and why they decided that only Fighters should be good archers or TWF types.
Why do you think it is unreasonable that Fighters are the best at Fighting?
If it bothers you, make a Fighter.
The way feats for commonly used combat styles are limited to particular classes is one of my biggest complaints about the playtest. I really feel like many of the Fighter class feats should really be combat feats that are available to lots of classes. Then if you want to make Fighters special give them earlier access to those feats or something. It's especially annoying to have to multiclass into Fighter for access to this stuff when the initial Fighter Dedication is totally useless because you already have proficiency in the weapons and armor you care about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a better way forward than general feats is for archetypes to develop that are "archer," "dervish," "brawler," etc. These archetypes can mimic the pirate and have slightly lower entry requirements in exchange for access to these abilities.
Part of the problem is that the Fighter Dedication feat itself has very low value for the other martial classes, who probably already either have most of the benefits it provides, or has class features that make many of those benefits less useful.
By comparison Rogue Dedication gets you actual class features from the rogue.
Cleric and Wizard Dedication give you actual spell casting.
Fighter gives you a lot of things that are probably redundant.
What's worse- these are the very basic, most common character types.
Rangers are supposed to be able to dual wield or choose bow style.
Dual wielding rogue is the most common character concept for Rogue through every previous edition.
If you want Rogue to be free hand focused the way Swashbuckler was, you need to explain that you have decided to ditch the core of the class for the past 45 years in favor of that.
Same with Rangers- if you want Rangers to have crossbows, not bows, you'd probably better explain why you made the choice to make the character that the term Ranger was coined for unplayable.