I've posted the Ranger specific comments in the spoiler tags. A some point, I hope to go into more details on the specific problems if I can muster the motivation.
Spoiler:
General comments - played both scenarios with the same GM.
RSR - Party and main schtick
Half-Elf Sorc - Telekinetic Projective
Human Paladin - Sword and Board (Hospice Knight, Deity)
Human Ranger - Companion and Shortbow - my character (Bear and Monster Hunter)
Goblin Fighter - Power attack w/Greatsword
Classes -
Fighter - 118
Paladin - 69
Ranger - 23
Scorc - 29
The Ranger was a joke. This class is functionally a mess. Hunt Target was of zero benefit throughout the entire scenario despite applying it before combat began : 1) Never hit with a second attack that would have missed but for Hunt Target. Nor did I crit as a result. +1 just does not have that much of an impact; 2) it's not possible to get 2 attacks in when controlling an NPC and having to move; 3) If HT is screened or has cover, you're better off attacking something right in front of you; 4) HT gets killed, you have to burn another action to identify another target; 5) A third attack is pointless. So despite getting -8 on the third attack, the benefit is essentially worthless because there's little incentive to use it at low level.
The Animal Companion sits idle for about 1/3 of the combat. In rounds where the Ranger wants to choose another HT and then move and then fire, the AC cannot be given commands. If the Ranger wants to use Monster Hunter, that's another action. There is a potential for the AC to add damage using Work Together. This is far superior to having the creature attack.
Monster Hunter is entirely pointless at this level: 1) You need to first have a Hunt Target (action); 2) You have to Critically succeed on a Recall K check (Another action); 3) It's +1 for one attack, not one around; 4) The Ranger is only trained in Nature. So that means it's impossible for the Hunter to critically succeed on any non-Nature monster >= Ranger's level unless he rolls a nat 20. I tried to use this ability, it never worked. It literally gave zero benefit.
Ranged combat - Being stuck with a shortbow means pitiful damage. The Ranger was out damaged by the Sorc using TK Projective. What's more, the Sorc could use different ammunition and get different damage types. The Ranger can get slashing with a Bear.
In combat, my Ranger did 16 of his 23 points (total) in one crit against a zombie with the bear threatening.
At no point was Tracking or any Survival skills beneficial. Though Nature did help. The scenario apparently calls for two Survival checks, but in our case, whatever we did made them unnecessary. The point here was that none of the Ranger's background or theme played a factor.
Arclord's Envry
Party -
Human Ranger - Bear companion, Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Favored Aim, Bonded Companion, Expert Bow
Human Paladin - All three 1st level class feats, Shielded Ally, Divine Grace,
Goblin Wizard - Thief dedication
Cleric of Nethys
Bard -
Classes
Damage for this one was harder to track due to more resistances/weakness. But over three encounters, the damage came out to as follows:
The Ranger was more effective than 1st level on account of a +1 bow and scoring a couple of crits/Nat 20's. This brought in the Deadly property and triggered the Crit Spec which twice forced an NPC to burn a round. However, given the specifics, this had minimal effect on the combat. Nevertheless, the Ranger came in dead last for damage (ignoring the bard who never actually attacked anything).
As with level 1, HT continues to be mostly worthless, and this is with my frequently using HT before Initiative is rolled. I might have gotten benefit from the second Range modifier on one shot. Despite getting two attacks (at the expense of the Companion doing nothing) not once did the +1 on the second attack make any difference. When I did command the animal, it never got any benefit from Hunt Target, so Companion's Bond did nothing. I used Favored Aim once, and quickly realized that the +1 you avoid from Screened or Cover, is not worth giving up an extra attack, or, more importantly, the ability to Command Animal.
Monster Hunter and Monster Warden never got used. There's no point in burning an action to try and identify a non-Nature NPC, when you need a natural 20 to critically succeed. In fact, almost no one used Recall Knowledge after initiative on account of it requiring an action.
Ultimately the Ranger is totally plagued by lack of actions, lack of agency, and lack of effectiveness. A composite shortbow with +1 on damage is not an effective weapon for a level 5 Ranger.
I would say no. We had a bunch of posters lauding the demise of spells and insisting Hunt Target was this great thing compared to Favored Enemy. I got a TON of use out of Favored Enemy through 9 levels of Ranger in PFS (yup, I did have to choose Human at level 1). Through two scenarios of playtest, I haven't realized a single benefit from Hunt Target. What's more, that +2 Seek/Track...never, ever, ever, was a factor. Compare that to AoO for Fighter, Retributive Strike for Paladins, and Sneak Attack for Rangers. Who got the shaft?
So no, all the people who insisted this was an improvement of P1 Ranger were dead wrong, IME.
1) Never hit with a second attack that would have missed but for Hunt Target. Nor did I crit as a result. +1 just does not have that much of an impact;
Just because it didn't change the outcome in your session does not mean that it is useless. Your chances of hitting as a ranger on multiple attacks are just better than other classes. Your samplesize was just too small to show that.
It's not just +1 by the way. It's +1 on the first and +2 on the second. And combined with agile weapons you double that. From your description I'm not sure if you used dual wielding, but the difference between hitting on -10 and -6 are huge. You don't have to playtest that to know that it makes a big difference.
but the difference between hitting on -10 and -6 are huge. You don't have to playtest that to know that it makes a big difference.
The problem is that a Ranger can never make 3 strikes in the same turn.
A Ranger that goes for an animal companion spends 1 action (to get 2 from the companion).
A Ranger that uses crossbows has to spend an action reloading (until 4th).
(Crossbows and AC being two of the feat chains Rangers get, a third chain based around Hunt Target is just straight bad, e.g. Monster Hunter requires a critical success on a Recall Knowledge roll (an action!) for a +1; further expansions down that tree are also awful. Stalker's Shot requires your HT to crit-fail a Seek against you, but if it does you get a Strike at -2)
Any time a Ranger has to use Hunt Target (because his current one died) he has to spend an action.
The difference between -5 and -3/-4 is still big. Even if you only use 2 attacks per turn.
In this edition small numbers have a bigger impact. It is way harder to get +hit modifiers and every additional + to hit doesn't just give higher hitchance but opens up more crtitchance as well.
Obviously the ranger has to balance his actioneconomy like any other class. You probably should not use hunt target on every single goblin you encounter but rather use that to mark the big guy, so you don't waste a lot of actions on hunt target.
And giving up a third attack to command your companion can at times be a good or bad decision. But that is up to the player and not a bad thing.
Just because it didn't change the outcome in your session does not mean that it is useless.
You're right. If we have an infinite number of monkeys playing Rangers, one of them is going to hit on the number using a second attack.
Quote:
Your chances of hitting as a ranger on multiple attacks are just better than other classes. Your samplesize was just too small to show that.
No, it wasn't too small to show that a +1 differential on a second attack has minimal to no effect in actual game use.
The bare math is that the +1 means you're going to hit less than 5% more than you would otherwise. It means you'll crit less than that because it simply may not be possible to get 10 higher than the AC on when getting -4 to hit.
Quote:
It's not just +1 by the way. It's +1 on the first and +2 on the second. And combined with agile weapons you double that.
No, you don't double anything, Agile weapons have nothing to do with Hunt Target. Everyone gets the bonus for making a second attack with an agile weapon. And I actually never got an opportunity to take a 3rd attack between having to choose another HT or Command Animal. Getting the benefit from the AC vastly trumps making a 3rd attack at -8.
Quote:
your description I'm not sure if you used dual wielding, but the difference between hitting on -10 and -6 are huge. You don't have to playtest that to know that it makes a big difference.
You do have to play test to determine if that makes a difference because making at third attack at -8 is often the worse choice of actions. And please stop acting like the TWF Ranger is the baseline for whether HT is garbage or not.
The difference between -5 and -3/-4 is still big. Even if you only use 2 attacks per turn.
No, it's not. The difference for every Ranger not using an Agile weapon for the 2nd attack is 1 on a 20. That's 5% difference. You're also overlooking the the fact that Agile weapons do less damage than non-Agile weapons. So going longsword/shortsword instead of Longsword + Longsword means you're giving up damage. You're also giving up shield. And if you're longsword is +1, you're giving up a lot more damage because it's a lot more costly to enchant two weapons than to simply attack twice with one.
Quote:
In this edition small numbers have a bigger impact.
No, that's completely false. +1 to an attack increases your odds of hitting exactly the same amount as in did in P1. Where it does have value is if it's on your first attack because it now gives you a 5+ increased chance of critting, which it did not do in P1. But guess what Asuet? Ranger's don't get the +1 on the first attack, they get it on the second which dramatically reduces the chance you can crit at all, outside of a nat 20.
Quote:
It is way harder to get +hit modifiers and every additional + to hit doesn't just give higher hitchance but opens up more crtitchance as well.
No, it doesn't automatically do that on the second or third attack which may not be able to crit outside of a nat 20.
Quote:
Obviously the ranger has to balance his actioneconomy like any other class
No, not like any other class. The Ranger is the only melee class whose main schtick cost an action. Compare A Rogue's Sneak Attack, a Fighter's AoO, a Paladin's Retributive Strike, and a Barbarian's Rage, and Hunt Target is a horrible ability in conjunction with the Monster Hunter, Favored Aim, Double Strike and Command Animal also costing Actions.
Quote:
You probably should not use hunt target on every single goblin you encounter but rather use that to mark the big guy, so you don't waste a lot of actions on hunt target.
You sounds like all the armchair generals in the blog post. You haven't actually played the class, have you? Guess what Asuet...the Big Guys are the usually the hardest armored. Which makes the second attack often impossible to crit and the third attack pointless. So the very thing Hunt Target is suppose to work against, renders it essentially pointless. The first BIG GUY I faced in Arclord's Envy had an AC of 22, which means that even with a +11 to hit, it was impossible for me to roll 10+ above using HT. We got one +1 magic weapon for that scenario. So even if was TWF, do you think it makes more sense to use a +1 longsword twice for another shot at 2d8, or only once and follow up with a mundane shortsword, for 1d6? at an additional +1 to hit?
In addition, the Ranger lacks heavy armor, so standing still for three rounds of attacks against a creature that was getting +16 to hit and knocking people prone on a crit (which I think it did against everyone it hit on Round 1) is pure stupidity.
Quote:
And giving up a third attack to command your companion can at times be a good or bad decision. But that is up to the player and not a bad thing.
In P1, the Ranger gave up nothing to command its animal. Ignoring that, you're suggesting that taking an attack at -8 is somehow preferable to getting an extra 1d8 on each attack is even remotely justifies Hunt Target, makes it clear....you have not played this class. Claiming that this feat should some how only be used on Big Guys means Ranger are the only class whose signature ability is meant go unused for 80% of the battles and then provides almost no benefit against the targets you think it should be used against.
Hunt Target is simply a horrible feat for Rangers, doubly so when compared to what other Martials are getting. The fact that so many of the Ranger's feats are tied to it is totally depressing.
Smaller numbers have a bigger impact because in 2e you have less ways to increase your hitchances than in P1. Of course the chance to hit increases in the same way. That + to hit has more value in 2e nevertheless.
And yes, if you completely ignore agile weapons because the damage dice is lower then you probably don't experience the same impact of your penaltyreduction.
As you admitted yourself, the bonus from your class didn't benefit you in your session. Again... that has nothing to do with the actual benefit. That's like a fighter saying his opponents only rolled 1's on their hits so him being trained in medium armor is useless.
Without having played the ranger yet, it seems to me that the current rules encourage a low level ranger to use his companion mainly as a damage sink and flanking partner, while he himself gets in position to strike atleast 2-3 times from his dual attacks. I do agree though that particularly in a fluent battle the ranger looks to be action starved - It probably needs a boost, I suggest something like this:
a) change Hunt Target to a free action b) give or create a feat to give, all animal companions minimum 1 action each turn. (in which case control just gives +1). c) create a ranger feat that once per round allows the ranger to use HT or Control as a free action (my favorite suggestion!)
Smaller numbers have a bigger impact because in 2e you have less ways to increase your hitchances than in P1. Of course the chance to hit increases in the same way. That + to hit has more value in 2e nevertheless.
And yes, if you completely ignore agile weapons because the damage dice is lower then you probably don't experience the same impact of your penaltyreduction.
As you admitted yourself, the bonus from your class didn't benefit you in your session. Again... that has nothing to do with the actual benefit. That's like a fighter saying his opponents only rolled 1's on their hits so him being trained in medium armor is useless.
I would direct people's attention to my simulation-based analysis of Fighter vs. Barbarian vs. Ranger damage in the General forum. It quantitatively bears out what the OP is saying: Ranger damage is much lower than Fighter's and Barbarian's.
I cannot say whether Hunt Target is truly useless, as I am not tracking with that level of fidelity, but the final numbers are pretty appalling.
At low level (e.g., 1), it is likely better damage to use an action for your animal companion, as their first attack is more likely to hit than your second and third attacks, even with HT.
Not sure what else to say. If anyone is playing a Ranger and expecting to be a good damage dealer, they are heading into a trap.
Smaller numbers have a bigger impact because in 2e you have less ways to increase your hitchances than in P1. Of course the chance to hit increases in the same way. That + to hit has more value in 2e nevertheless.
I know what you're trying to say, but you're saying it wrong. Smaller numbers don't have a bigger impact. They have exactly the same impact they had before.
What you're trying to say is that it's harder to get lots of stacking bonuses in P2. Or put another way, things that give you a bonus are harder to acquire. That's not the same thing as having a "bigger impact" and trying to claim that in defense of Hunt Target is just flat out misinformation.
Quote:
And yes, if you completely ignore agile weapons because the damage dice is lower then you probably don't experience the same impact of your penaltyreduction.
One doesn't "completely ignore agile weapons." No class is required to fight with agile weapons to have their signature ability provide any substantive benefit and neither should Rangers. That fact that you're even making this statement is proof-positive of the problem Paizo needs to fix.
Quote:
As you admitted yourself, the bonus from your class didn't benefit you in your session. Again... that has nothing to do with the actual benefit.
Actually it 100% does. In order for it to prove NO benefit despite the number of encounters/dice rolls and situations in which I tried to use it, means it must be really really weak. Contrast that with a Rogue trying to use Sneak Attack or a Paladin trying to use Retributive Strike.
Quote:
That's like a fighter saying his opponents only rolled 1's on their hits so him being trained in medium armor is useless.
No, it's not like that at all. There's a 5% chance your enemy will roll a 1 and its a statistical improbability that all the attacks will be a 1. Guess what? It's statistically unlikely that any given attack will be exactly the number you need to hit...you know...like a 5% chance. And that's the benefit of HT on a 2nd attack, regardless of whether you're TWF or not.
I'm going to ask you again, have you actually played this class during a playtest scenario?
I've been making characters and putting them against monsters at random lvls, generally 1, 3, 7, and 10. So far I've done the Alchemist, Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger. The Ranger and Alchemist have done the best so far. The Fighter was winning around 65% of the time, the Barbarian coming in a little lower at 50% or so. The Alchemist, funny enough, won around 80% of his battles (despite being knocked unconscious for several of them. The persistent damage he inflicted would kill his opponents after he fell and the I would roll to wake up so I counted that as a win) The Ranger, who I used with an Animal Companion, won about 70% of the time. The flanking bonus the Ranger gets with his Animal Companion topped with his Hunt Target ability was pretty great.
It seems in this edition you have to play more to the Rangers strengths. You can't just be "Wilderness Fighter" anymore. So if you want to be an up their face damage dealer you need an Animal Companion and you have to get into position, with each type of Animal Companion helping you do that differently. If you just want to run up, stand there and smash then the Ranger won't do well.
If you don't want an Animal Companion then you need to change your tactics as a Ranger. Bow Rangers are also very good considering you can just use Favored Aim every round and get a higher Attack than the Fighter could and a comparable second attack because of Hunt Target. TWF is also a good option as they get Double Slice and Twin Parry, with Hunt Target not really being needed with the TWF build. Though I guess you could still get an Animal Companion at first, instead of Double Slice, and still have a good chance of hitting without Double Slice because of Hunt Target.
I may need to run another type of Fighter as I did the Fighter first but I was a little more thorough with the Alchemist, Barbarian and Ranger. So far it seems the Barbarian is the worst solo class which is funny because you would think they would do very well 1v1.
The difference between -5 and -3/-4 is still big. Even if you only use 2 attacks per turn.
In this edition small numbers have a bigger impact. It is way harder to get +hit modifiers and every additional + to hit doesn't just give higher hitchance but opens up more crtitchance as well.
No it doesn't. Monsters aren't designed like that.
Second attack never hits on a 10 (and the first attack barely hits on a 10) and they crit on 20 only; with a +1 or +2 or +3 or +4 or +5, they still crit on a 20 only. There's no way the third attack can crit on anything else than a 20 (even with a +10 buff they still would crit on 20 only).
Only the first attack can get more critchance thank to buffs. And only the fighter gets a passive on his first attack - and he gets the same bonus as a ranger on his second attack, and he doesn't spend action for that.
I've been making characters and putting them against monsters at random lvls, generally 1, 3, 7, and 10. So far I've done the Alchemist, Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger.
First off, thanks for the post. Information about how classes perform in different situations can be informative.
Quote:
The Ranger and Alchemist have done the best so far.
As neither of the classes share similar mechanics, it would help to know the specifics of how you're conducting the simulations.
Quote:
The Ranger, who I used with an Animal Companion, won about 70% of the time. The flanking bonus the Ranger gets with his Animal Companion topped with his Hunt Target ability was pretty great.
If this is a test of a solo Ranger versus one or two creatures, it's most likely that the Hunt Target is actually reducing your damage. Alternatively, you're fighting creatures without animal-level intelligence. I'll explore this more below.
Quote:
It seems in this edition you have to play more to the Rangers strengths. You can't just be "Wilderness Fighter" anymore.
I'm not sure what you mean by be a "Wilderness Fighter." In P1, "wilderness" had no effect on a Ranger's fighting style. Either the Ranger got bonuses for Terrain or it didn't.
Quote:
So if you want to be an up their face damage dealer you need an Animal Companion and you have to get into position, with each type of Animal Companion helping you do that differently. If you just want to run up, stand there and smash then the Ranger won't do well.
Your synopsis seems to conflict with the rules. Let me make a few observations:
1) You cannot get 2nd or 3rd attack if you have to Command Animal and Move. In any round that you have to move and employ the Companion, you only get one attack. That means you're not getting any benefit from Hunt Target.
2)Per the rules, you have to use Command Animal every round that you want the Companion do to anything but sit there.. Using CA costs an Action. That means in any round that you need your Companion to take action, you cannot get a 3rd attack.. The rules make a reference to the animal defending itself or running away, but that seems to be GM discretion. Also, if you tell the animal to attack first, it isn't defending itself.
3) If you don't get a 2nd or 3rd attack Hunt Target does nothing This is a essentially a repeat of #1, but it bears remembering.
4) The animal companion cannot attack and Work Together in the same round. You have to pick one or the other. You don't get both.
Quote:
If you don't want an Animal Companion then you need to change your tactics as a Ranger. Bow Rangers are also very good considering you can just use Favored Aim every round and get a higher Attack than the Fighter could and a comparable second attack because of Hunt Target.
Bows actually are the worse form of damage in this version of Pathfinder. Your statement reads as someone who is trying to make an educated guess about something as opposed to having played it.
1) Longbows have a -2 modifier at ranges less than 50ft. A Fighters Point Blank Shot eliminates that penalty and allows the Fighter to use a weapon with a higher base damage. If the Fighter uses a Shortbow, they get +2 damage ALL attacks in the first range increment. So your statement is misleading.
2) Composite bows only get 1/2 STR modifier, so you need at least a 14 STR to get a +1 on damage. This further reduces the benefit of ranged combat.
3) Favored Aim takes two actions. That means you don't get a second attack if you use HT to designate a Target and you only get the benefit against a Hunt Target, which means you have take an action to designate the Target at least once in the combat to get any benefit from Favored Aim.
4) If you do have a companion, then using Favored Aim essentially means you often don't get to command the companion or you don't get to take a second attack. If you have to move and command the companion, then you don't get to use FA.
5) The damage multiplier for bows is the same as it is for all weapons. They've tried to compensate this with the Deadly property, but the 1d10 is less valuable as you level. It doesn't scale until you get a Master weapon or a Legendary weapon, both which are exceedingly expensive.
6) No flanking bonuses for ranged combat.
Quote:
TWF is also a good option as they get Double Slice and Twin Parry, with Hunt Target not really being needed with the TWF build. Though I guess you could still get an Animal Companion at first, instead of Double Slice, and still have a good chance of hitting without Double Slice because of Hunt Target.
Once again, HT gives you a +1 on a second attack and a +2 on a third attack, if you get them.
Quote:
So far it seems the Barbarian is the worst solo class which is funny because you would think they would do very well 1v1.
So based on this statement is seems you're running the combats 1v1. If so, this greatly skews the results compared with actual game combat.
1) Any single creature is not going to sit there and let itself be flanked unless it's mindless. Since its third attack is at -10, it is far better to creature to move after it attacks twice. This forces the Ranger to both Command Animal and Move itself. And by doing that, the creature can continuously deny a Ranger a 2nd or 3rd attack.
2) Since most combats aren't 1v1, a melee ranger who sends his/her Companion into flank, runs the risk of the creature getting KO'd in the first round. A Companion's armor class is fairly low and that makes it Crit bait for any creature at the Ranger's level or near it. The Ranger has no ability to heal the companion, so aggressive use of a Companion in melee is going to get it KO'd.
3) Hunt Target target frequently dies in party combat. In actual use, you'll find that if you designate mooks for HT, they die quickly from combined combat of the party and this forces you to have to spend an Action to designate a new one. If you target Bosses, then you're often barred from attacking the boss directly because of mooks and specific tactics that scenarios use to try and slow down meleers.
I suggest you play the class in an actual playtest and tell me how it works out. There's no doubt that having a flanking partner is going to increase damage. Too bad it does nothing for archery focuses combat.
Yep, I've been playtesting a Ranger and so far it has been very disappointing. Trying to get 2 weapon attack in, with Double Slice which seems to be their only good attack power is very difficult.
Getting the 2 weapons out, moving around, comanding you animal companion.
So far I haven't been able to get my animal companion, using its work together power, combined with the Double Slice attack in. That what my character was designed to do but the action economy keeps betting me.
Given that you can attack twice with just one weapon, I'd rather have the option of a shield in my second hand.
The other thing which really annoyed my was that rangers get weapon epertise in one weapon group. Rangers are already +1 to hit behind fighters and they are supposed to use multiple weapons.
I'd really like to have the option of wielding two different weapons. But the mechanics are working against me. I'd also like to have the option of wielding a bow as well.
Ranger should have a TWF feat other than Double Slice that interacts somehow with Hunt Target. I think the stream from two weeks ago mentioned this - so they are aware.
Given that you can attack twice with just one weapon, I'd rather have the option of a shield in my second hand.
Yes, one of my Ranger's in P1 is a Sword & Board Ranger with a Companion.. Based on the way Hunt Target works, that character would be counter-productive in P2. Why? Raising a Shield is an action and would eliminate a 3rd attack. If you have to move, or, Command Animal, it is impossible to get a 2nd attack.
Paizo needs to change Hunt Target. Bonuses that depend on 2nd and 3rd attacks are at odds with the entire implementation of the class and the rest of the game.
In all fairness, once hunt target is going you can full round for -0/-1/-1 if you dual wield agile weapons.
I wanted to test the sawtooth sabers. The sword crit specialization is too good in this edition.
Dude, this is totally misleading.
Hunt Target is not giving you 0/-1/-1. Below 16th level and lower, you're getting a to-hit benefit of 0/+1/+2 from HT and at 17th level it improves to 0/+2/+4. So assuming you're 0/-1/-1 is only achievable at 17th levle, then if you stop using Hunt Target, you're still hitting at 0/-3/-5.
What is also incredibly misleading about your example is that you aren't getting a 3rd attack when using Hunt Target. You aren't getting a 2nd attack when using Monster Hunter, or Command Animal as well. And you aren't getting any attacks if you have to move that same round. So that first round when the non-HT using Ranger just attacks and Commands, they are getting two attacks a 0/-3. That's a really big deal that is totally overlooked.
Mark Seifter flat-out acknowledged that using HT probably doesn't pay off until the 3rd round or worse, and he completely ignored the cost of having to use Command Animal or Monster Hunter. He even suggested you wouldn't use it against mooks (as if you're always going to know how many HPs something has). So unless your target is going to survive four or more rounds of combat, Hunt Target is costing Ranger's damage...a LOT of damage. Failing to kill things quickly exposes the Ranger and the party to more damage and debilitating effects.
Paizo needs to change HT. It needs to do something that does not require 2nd and 3rd attacks.
Paizo needs to change Hunt Target. Bonuses that depend on 2nd and 3rd attacks are at odds with the entire implementation of the class and the rest of the game.
Not only does attacking with Hunt Target compete for actions with animal companions and moving, but the only ranged weapon that Rangers have direct feat support for is the crossbow, with which you will never (with the current feats, anyway) get more than two shots a round.
Smaller numbers don't have a bigger impact. They have exactly the same impact they had before.
This is not true.
Yes, +1 gives you a +5% chance of hitting. But if your chance of hitting goes from 5% to 10% you've just doubled your effective damage per round. If it goes from 50% to 55% (the normal case) you've increased effective damage per round by 10%
When you add in critical hits AND multiple attacks a +1 to hit adds quite a bit more to expected damage per round in PF2 than in PF1.
That said, I think the developers have slightly overemphasized how important a +1 is. Mathematically, they're right. But a +1 doesn't "feel" all that important due to human bias in looking at random numbers.
On a third hand, combats last longer and have a lot more swings than in PF2 so you're going to actually SEE the effects of that +1 more often. Pretty much every combat at least one person is going to hit when they'd have missed. Most combats it happens at least twice. That is noticeable to humans
Smaller numbers don't have a bigger impact. They have exactly the same impact they had before.
This is not true.
It is true, if we set aside the slight boost to crit chance, assuming you can crit.
Quote:
Yes, +1 gives you a +5% chance of hitting. But if your chance of hitting goes from 5% to 10% you've just doubled your effective damage per round. If it goes from 50% to 55% (the normal case) you've increased effective damage per round by 10%
You're subscribing to a fallacy that comes up a lot when looking at changes to %. Whether you have doubled or damage output or only improved it by 10%, you're adding the exact same increase in damage, the only difference is the ratio of improvement. It is irrelevant to the +1 what your other pluses are. Adding +1 to +10 does not have any less effect a than adding +1 to +0. In all all cases, you're hitting 5% more, which is exactly what you were doing in P1.
Even if you want to look at it from the increase of hitting from 5% to 10% as a "doubling" of damage, the same exact thing is true in Pathfinder 1.0. Asuet is trying to portray Hunt Target as this massive improvement to a Ranger's comparative combat effectiveness by misrepresenting the value of a +1 on a d20 as being more impactful. It's not. _+1 has no more impact than it did previously, setting aside the small damage bump from crits (if they are even possible on a 2nd or 3rd attack).
The bottom line here is that none of this is any different than it was in P1.
Quote:
When you add in critical hits AND multiple attacks a +1 to hit adds quite a bit more to expected damage per round in PF2 than in PF1.
That's completely false in the case of Hunt Target. At sub level 17 (you know, like 99% of the game for most people) it may not be possible to crit on second attack and certainly not a third attack. And, on things that have a low enough armor class that a -4 still gets you +10 on the creature's AC, it's most likely that the extra damage isn't needed to kill the creature in the first round or second round anyway.
Quote:
That said, I think the developers have slightly overemphasized how important a +1 is
On this we agree. It was clearly part of a PR campaign to prepare players for broadband nerf modifiers and to up-sell the concept of critting on a +10.
Quote:
Mathematically, they're right.
That is a contradiction. You can't be "mathematically" right about something that is subjectively. The impact of +1 is exactly the same as before. There is a less than 5% increase inc criting because, at least for HT, you may not be able to achieve +10 on a 2nd or 3rd attack, and, the creatures may be immune to crits. So the expected increase in your damage is less than 5% of whatever your extra crit damage would be. Whether that is "important" is a subjective call. I would argue that not using HT and simply getting a more consistent 2nd attack at -5 instead of -4 is far more "important." The problem is that many of the Ranger's other abilities only work against the target you're hunting, so a player is tricked into using an ability that is ultimately reducing his/her overall damage.
Quote:
But a +1 doesn't "feel" all that important due to human bias in looking at random numbers.
"Human bias" has nothing to do with it. It's straight math. Run the numbers. Use Hunt Target at level 5 for an entire scenario, and then run the same scenario and don't waste an action on it. Tell me what you're damage differential is and you'll see how "human bias" isn't a factor.
Quote:
On a third hand, combats last longer and have a lot more swings than in PF2 so you're going to actually SEE the effects of that +1 more often.
That's not necessarily true. The +1 only comes up if you get a second or third attack. If you have to Command Animal and Move, you aren't getting a +1 on anything. If your target dies or becomes untargetable, you get no bonus. In fact, I'd say that in the level 5 PFS combat, I missed out on a 2nd attack about half the combat rounds due to a Companion and having to move. When I did get a 2nd attack it was at the expense of my Companion. At one point I had to let the animal sit there in a Stinking Cloud because I simply didn't have the action to move it, hoping to get a 2nd attack.
I'm going to remind you that the +1 is only a factor if you actually hit because of it. You know how often that happens? 5% of your attacks
Quote:
Pretty much every combat at least one person is going to hit when they'd have missed. Most combats it happens at least twice. That is noticeable to humans
That's completely and totally false. A +1 from Hunt Target changes 5% of the misses into hits, on average. That's not going to be noticeable to the average person without you knowing exactly what you rolled. The +2 on the third attack would change 10%, but that's assuming you can hit with a -8 and can make a 3d attack.
Nothing in my example is wrong or misleading, it's a serious factor to consider using double slice second instead of first after a crit with a sword.
No, it's totally misleading
It's like claiming Hunt Target is giving me +11 +12 +13 on my three attacks at level 5. Hunt Target is giving me +0/+1/+2 on my attacks the other modifiers have nothing to do with HT.
You're trying to claim Hunt Target is giving you something it is not. Hunt Target is not getting you there. You're adding on other modifiers that have nothing to do with Hunt Target. More importantly, you're intentionally ignoring that it's difficult to get a 2nd attack and rare to get a 3rd attack in actual game play. You're also ignoring that you're giving up damage in the early rounds. Damage you may never make up for.
So yeah, when you make a statement that HT (along with a bunch of other modifiers you aren't mentioning) is allowing you to get attacks at +0 /-1/-1 and you're totally ignoring the attendant penalties, it's text book misleading.
When you add in critical hits AND multiple attacks a +1 to hit adds quite a bit more to expected damage per round in PF2 than in PF1.
Actually, no. This entirely depends on what you need to roll to get the crit. If you need a 20 after your +1 (which is usually true for the 2nd and 3rd attack), that +1 does nothing in 2e. Whereas in 1e, it improves your chance of confirming a crit. So for those attacks where HT is relevant, the +1 is likely to do LESS than it did in 1e.
Even if HT applied to all attacks, it would still be pretty mediocre, if only because of the action used to start it.
Even if HT applied to all attacks, it would still be pretty mediocre, if only because of the action used to start it.
Unfortunately, even as a free action, it does very little. The real problem with HT is not that it cost an action, the problem is that it's giving very little benefit and its incompatible with the action heavy abilities of the class e.g. Monster Hunter, Favored Aim, Double Slice, Command Animal, Impossible Volley, etc.
HT needs a combat benefit that is not dependent on getting a 2nd and 3rd attack.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
4e had instinctive actions for summoned creatures. They weren't fantastic, but the creature didn't just sit and do nothing if you didn't command it. Something like that might be good to add for pets.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
if that's how you want to see it then fine go ahead. I'm just saying the character wasn't fun to play, and didn't really have a major impact on the adventure.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
if that's how you want to see it then fine go ahead. I'm just saying the character wasn't fun to play, and didn't really have a major impact on the adventure.
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
if that's how you want to see it then fine go ahead. I'm just saying the character wasn't fun to play, and didn't really have a major impact on the adventure.
Were you using work together?
Hampered 5 doesn't really do much when the Pally is already keeping the monsters in melee
It was very frustrating having to remind my pet to keep attacking the same monster every single round.
and wanting to be a Bow ranger It's more than a little annoying to find the only ranged weapon feat at first level is for Crossbows. I used my human bonus to take the animal companion and found nothing else really to take so I just kind of went with Monster hunter, which honestly didn't really feel like it did much at all.
With the Bow I wasn't really any better at it then our Elf Cleric.
I didn't do badly in our game I just didn't feel like I did much of anything.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
if that's how you want to see it then fine go ahead. I'm just saying the character wasn't fun to play, and didn't really have a major impact on the adventure.
Were you using work together?
Hampered 5 doesn't really do much when the Pally is already keeping the monsters in melee
Maybe look at a different animal companion? They do different things.
Nothing in my example is wrong or misleading, it's a serious factor to consider using double slice second instead of first after a crit with a sword.
No, it's totally misleading
It's like claiming Hunt Target is giving me +11 +12 +13 on my three attacks at level 5. Hunt Target is giving me +0/+1/+2 on my attacks the other modifiers have nothing to do with HT.
You're trying to claim Hunt Target is giving you something it is not. Hunt Target is not getting you there. You're adding on other modifiers that have nothing to do with Hunt Target. More importantly, you're intentionally ignoring that it's difficult to get a 2nd attack and rare to get a 3rd attack in actual game play. You're also ignoring that you're giving up damage in the early rounds. Damage you may never make up for.
So yeah, when you make a statement that HT (along with a bunch of other modifiers you aren't mentioning) is allowing you to get attacks at +0 /-1/-1 and you're totally ignoring the attendant penalties, it's text book misleading.
False.
I'm claiming that HT is a singular component of a system that must be used in conjunction with the other mechanics in the game in order to be effective.
If anything, you're jump to label it misleading is more indicative of the system mandating system mastery for these abilities to be relevant, and it's indicative of unbalanced design on behalf of the weapon system.
The fact that you have to know how all these rules interact just to use the class feature is a problem, true. I'd prefer a system that doesn't force such comprehensive reading and complexity in order to facilitate a competent character.
This element of the game is what leads some of us to write hundred+ page guides on classes. To be fair tho, it did get Mark a job.
So, you don't like the animal companion because it doesn't let you abuse the action economy? You get 2 actions for the one you spend. That's a good benefit.
While the animal companion may ultimately be worth the action cost,
1 Companion Action =/= 1 PC action.
It's not accurate to say that the PC trades 1 action for 2. The PC is not getting 2 more actions. The dynamic Paizo has employed with Companions is fairly straight forward, give up an action for more damage in the right situation (and if Paizo adds Tricks, more agency). Whether or not action tax to Command an animal is a net increase in damage really depends on the circumstance.
Personally, I like the animal companion paradigm. It gives a Ranger slightly more agency and more importantly, it gives me, as a player, more tactical options. In P2, I don't have a problem with it costing actions to command the animal. However it's just immersion breaking to have the animal sit there and do nothing in the middle of a fight, even though it may have been attacking for five straight rounds.
I'm claiming that HT is a singular component of a system that must be used in conjunction with the other mechanics in the game in order to be effective.
If that's what you actually had said, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you presented a narrow case outcome and offered zero explanation as to how one gets there or the likelihood a character will enjoy that benefit. It's like a car company claiming there car can get 75 mpg because the engine is so efficient, and leaving out that this is only possible if you're going downhill.
0/-1/-1 is not the basis under which HT should be evaluated.
The math is more than just Hunt Target and Double slice. Nor do you discuss what level.
Dual agile weapons doesn't imply Double Slice is in effect. It implies that you're using agile weapons and Hunt Target.
It's not at all clear you are talking about the 0/-1/-1 as being a produce of the weapons you are using. It looks like you're making a blanket statement about HT and agile weapons and adding in some ancillary comment about a specific weapon group.
I'll repeat what I said,
0/-1/-1 should not be the basis for a discussion about HT being garbage or great. 0/-1/-1 doesn't make HT great. HT stacked with whatever else you're doing to doesn't validate HT. You're implying that it does. If you went through every bonus in detail, that would undermine the notion that HT is really what's making your combat work.
The math is more than just Hunt Target and Double slice. Nor do you discuss what level.
Dual agile weapons doesn't imply Double Slice is in effect. It implies that you're using agile weapons and Hunt Target.
It's not at all clear you are talking about the 0/-1/-1 as being a produce of the weapons you are using. It looks like you're making a blanket statement about HT and agile weapons and adding in some ancillary comment about a specific weapon group.
I'll repeat what I said,
0/-1/-1 should not be the basis for a discussion about HT being garbage or great. 0/-1/-1 doesn't make HT great. HT stacked with whatever else you're doing to doesn't validate HT. You're implying that it does. If you went through every bonus in detail, that would undermine the notion that HT is really what's making your combat work.
first action: strike (0 MAP) ~15% chance to crit. If crit, then flat footed.
second action: double slice (-3 MAP) or (-1) if flat footed.
It's convoluted, but it's the cap, the best it'll ever get. I think, I wanna do the calc first.
I think the problem people are experiencing from this is that, at least from a thematic perspective, Hunt Target is something you use against a creature you are hunting. Most of its benefits and the benefits of its progressive abilities function as a you and the party against a single opponent. Monster Hunter and Monster Warden follow the same pattern. It does not compete with AOO or Retributive Strike because it was never designed to.
The Ranger is, for all intents and purposes, designed as a skirmisher, like a rogue or a monk. They are not front line fighters, they are switch hitters. Thus it would be more fair to compare Hunt Target to Flurry of Blows or Sneak Attack. It is also fair to mention that its skill bonuses support this conclusion.
For the Rogue, Finesse Striker allows them to deal viable damage on normal attacks, while sneak attack allows them to deal extra damage against flat-footed opponents, while Surprise Attacks allows them to use sneak more often. But While they gain the most skills and the most skill feats, their starter abilities do not supplement their skills and while they are Expert in perception, Reflex and Will, they are only Trained in Light Armor and have very limited weapon selection.
The Monk on the other hand is only trained in perception and has a small selection of skill proficiencies with no weapon or armor proficiencies to speak of, while they are expert in Unarmored Defense and in all Saves. Their Flurry of Blows takes an action to make two unarmed strikes, but the second strike counts against MAP, and can only be used once per round. The Powerful Fist ability increases unarmed damage to supplement the Flurry of Blows ability, While the Graceful Expertise mitigates their armor restrictions.
Hunt Target allows the ranger to relentlessly harry an opponent, tracking it down and allowing for multiple attacks to hit more often. This ability is probably best implemented against a stealthy, evasive opponent (you don't have to see the target to use Hunt Target so long as you can hear them), and Rangers are best suited against a single opponent. In addition to this, they have Expert in all saves and in Perception, the third highest number of skill proficiencies and is trained Light and Medium armor as well as all simple and martial weapons. In addition to this, like the Rogue, they are able to eventually have Legendary proficiency in Perception
Now putting all of this in consideration, I do think Hunt Target needs a boost, but I think a secondary supplemental ability that makes it more useful, more often (similar to the design of the Rogue and Monk) would be the route to take rather than changing the ability itself.
I think the problem people are experiencing from this is that, at least from a thematic perspective, Hunt Target is something you use against a creature you are hunting.
Except that implementation of bonus damage that only occurs on 2nd and 3rd strikes does not represent any concept of hunting, real or fictional. Hunting with weapons is predicated on a single, lethal, attacks. So thematically, this doesn't feel like its hunting.
Quote:
It does not compete with AOO or Retributive Strike because it was never designed to.
That's actually false. First, nothing competes directly against anything else. Second, everyone Signature ability competes with every other signature ability as an enticement for players to play the character. Retributive Strike sounds a LOT more interesting and useful than Hunt Target. AoO's do as well. When I played side by side with a Paladin at 5th level, his RS did about 20% of his total damage. Hunt Target contributed to 0% of my total damage. If you don't think players are weighing the benefits of one versus the other, then you're in denial. According to some Twich feed, posted by someone else, Ranger are the least played class during the playtest.
Quote:
The Ranger is, for all intents and purposes, designed as a skirmisher, like a rogue or a monk. They are not front line fighters, they are switch hitters
In 1e, that's false. Rangers were not designed as switch-hitters nor were they given any abilities that specifically supported that playstyle. What is true, is that the class lends itself to that style of play more so than other martials, but there is no evidence that was intentional. Nor, do I see any design elements that promote that style in P2 any more than a Fighter or Barbarian, and perhaps less than both.
Quote:
Thus it would be more fair to compare Hunt Target to Flurry of Blows or Sneak Attack. It is also fair to mention that its skill bonuses support this conclusion.
I don't see that. You'll have to elaborate.
Quote:
Hunt Target allows the ranger to relentlessly harry an opponent, tracking it down and allowing for multiple attacks to hit more often.
That's theory crafting, not actual game play. In actual game play, you don't ever need to track something down after you've engaged it. At best, it'll turn invisible and try to hide and you might get to use a +2 seek, once in forty encounters. But a +2 seek is only going to increase your chance to make something Sensed 10% of the time. Then, you get a Sense the Unseen and that +2 Seek is pointless.
Quote:
Rangers are best suited against a single opponent.
Yes, I've noted that in several other threads if not this one already. The design concept seems to be intended to promote Rangers to get tunnel vision and become fixated on a single combatant until defeated. Then start over. This concept is not what the Ranger was about in P1. It is a better concept for a class called the Hunter or Slayer. But even going with this concept, the implementation of the class is contradictory and self-defeating. Hunt Target requires multiple attacks to provide a benefit and many of the bonuses abilities require Hunt Target to function but also require actions, most notably an animal companion.
Quote:
In addition to this, they have Expert in all saves and in Perception, the third highest number of skill proficiencies and is trained Light and Medium armor as well as all simple and martial weapons. In addition to this, like the Rogue, they are able to eventually have Legendary proficiency in Perception
And? The difference between Legendary and Trained perception is +3 on a die. Wow... Trained vs Untrained...+2. Skills have been nerfed. Or more importantly the Ranger as a Skill monkey has been backdoor nerfed by reducing the benefit of having skills over those who don't to the range of a Stat modifier. In P1, my Ranger was able to get Sense Motive as a class skill and had the skill points to boost it. At level 9, my modifier is +15. I can take 10 and determine whether someone was lying. If you aren't train in Sense Motive, your modifier is 0. I had enough points in Spellcraft, I could routinely identify spells with a +14 modifier. Now that's a the benefit of Ranger Skill points in P1. In P2, I'm +2 better than a Fighter at most skill and maybe not even that depending on the skill and the stats.
You're presenting all these things that the Ranger gets, but none of them are substantial given the changes to the game.
Quote:
I do think Hunt Target needs a boost, but I think a secondary supplemental ability that makes it more useful, more often (similar to the design of the Rogue and Monk) would be the route to take rather than changing the ability itself.
We almost agreed here. If the Ranger is now going to be the Hunter, then Hunt Target needs to be changed. The benefit needs to be on one's 1st attack, not the 2nd or 3rd. This immediately alleviates the conflict with having so many action dependent abilities.
But perhaps the biggest improvement that needs to be done is a thematic change. The Ranger needs to get back its utility and all its thematic abilities need to be generally useful. Tracking needs to be useful. Covering one's tracks, needs to be useful, etc.
I'm just curious if the Requirements for Hunt Target (You can see or hear the target.) are really necessary for using the ranger's class feature before she can hear or see her soon-to-be target.
Asked the other way around: Is it intended or even possible to Seek a target if the ranger has to fullfill the requirements before she can designate the target?
Is it intended that the ranger - provided she has enough "proof" of it - designates a target she "knows" is in the area of 100 ft. to be able to Seek it and gain the +2 bonus on Perception?
Maybe, a clarification or better wording is required to address this issue?
Do I understand correctly that a ranger could do this?
After having spent an action to designate a target with Hunt Target the round before, in the next round she could Double Slice (1st action) her target with a single Strike at a -4/-4 penalty, then Double Slice (2nd action) it with a single Strike at a -8/-8 penalty, and finally Double Slice (3rd action) it with a single Strike at a -8/-8 penalty.
Maybe, the odds to hit are otherworldly; would this be feasible, though?
Please, correct my math if it's bad.
No. Double Slice is a two-action Strike. You can only do it once per turn. That also means you can't use it in any round that you have to move and Command Animal.
