Rangers

[TheMadPhoenix]

Rangers need to be more bow focused. I don't mind that shortbows are the preferred bow now for hunters, that actually makes sense. However, I want to see Rangers get more bow feats like PBS and others to make them the best bow uses of all classes. Fighters should be good, but Rangers should be the best.

While we're on bows, Erastil should just have bows as his weapon so Clerics or others who venerate him can take either shortbows or longbows as their holy weapon.

[Swiftbrook]

No Ranger Archers - A Very Sad Day

I have played a ranger in D&D for over 18 years. When D&D 3.0 came out the Ranger class was just plain bad. Monte Cook’s The Revised Ranger made the class playable until 3.5 was released. Pathfinder continued making the Ranger a viable, enjoyable class to play. Pathfinder Playtest shoehorns the ranger into a two-weapon fighter or a crossbowman.

Jason Bultman mentioned on Twitch that not many people were playing rangers – it was one of the lowest used. I can see why.

Some observations what I don't like about the 2.0 Ranger:

• It's two-weapon fighting or crossbow focused.
  
• You must choose between an animal companion or combat feats.
  
• No favored terrain. (many people didn't like this aspect but I did)
  
• No spell casting. (I believe I read that the final version would have spell casting option. I hope so, but in the current format to be a caster would make all other abilities even worse.)
  
• It's just not fun to play.
  

Please, please, redesign the Ranger bringing back some of his traditional abilities and combinations.

Just My Thoughts

[dnoisette]

I used to think the same because I love the ranger archer concept.

The archer ranger is still there, it's just carefully hidden and not obvious to see.

I did some theorycrafting and realized that many of the feats that are fighter-only aren't necessary to make the ranger archer work.
Here's why:

1. Double-Shot, Triple-Shot and Multishot Paragon stance get you a maximum of 3 attacks a round at -2/-2/-2 (assuming you're not quick).
This happens by level 16 and a fighter can enter a stance as a free action when they roll initiative.

However, the ranger gets Hunt Target and Greater Distracting Shot by level 16, which the fighter does not. This also gets you a maximum of 3 attacks a round at +0/-2/-6, assuming you're hunting the target and the first attack hits and makes the enemy flat-footed against your remaining attacks (hence essentially giving you an extra +2 to hit). Next round, all of your attacks are against a flat-footed opponent so you're attacking at +2/-2/-6. When you hit level 17, this goes up to +2/-1/-4.

In terms of accuracy, the ranger is not doing so bad compared to the fighter. Their first attack will hit more reliably (especially if you combo that off with Master Monster Hunter for an extra +1) and the 3rd will hit less reliably.
I'd take better accuracy for my 1st attack over 3rd attack any day.

However, I agree that the issue here is that the ranger has to spend an action to hunt their target and possibly use Master Monster Hunter as well if you so desired.
There should be a feat that does what Stance Savant does for the fighter and just lets you hunt a target when rolling for initiative.
Having to do that again when the first target dies is tedious enough already.

2. Point-Blank Shot: it seems odd the ranger does not have this feat as a class feat.
However, it is important to note that in the above example, the fighter cannot use Point-Blank Shot together with Multishot Paragon (both of them are stances) whereas nothing prevents a ranger that took the fighter archetype and basic maneuver for Point-Blank Shot to use it AND achieve respectable hit chance at the same time.
In the end, this means more damage for the ranger, because you get to use a longbow always, without fear of having to take that volley penalty.

You do have to sacrifice two feats instead of one to get this though and you still have to spend an action to enter the stance.

In short, you lose again at action economy.
If playing a ranger, you can achieve similar hit chance and better damage than a fighter at archery, but you have to admit that your first round in combat will be about "buffing" yourself up with Hunt Target, Point-Blank Shot stance and, possibly Master Monster Hunter if you like (that one is truly optional).

3. All of the above examples assume 3 attacks per round, if your character is not quick (which it probably is at level 16 but anyway).
If you get an animal companion, you only get 2 attacks per round because you have to command the animal companion. However, the bear adds +2d8 damage to both attacks, making it 4d8 damage in total, against the 5d8 + 1/2 STR modifier a third, less reliable attack would have granted (assuming a +4 weapon here).
So an animal companion is a perfectly viable option if you would like to have one, although you do have to pick up the bear just to kip up with the fighter archer's damage.

I should say that I hate how low the animal companion's AC is at the moment. A regular mob generally needs to roll 3-4+ on a d20 to hit them, meaning they're crit bags and will take tons of HP damage...with no way for the ranger to heal their pet outside of Trick Item, a high Wisdom score, and luck when overspending Resonance Points.

Rangers should have a heal animal power using spell points, just like the animal order Druid (or at least the option to get that from a feat) .
As it stands right now, animal companions will not last 2 round in melee combat and this is...sad, to say the least.

But it's a whole other issue.

My point is: Rangers are not the best archers out there but they can achieve comparable damage with the fighter and even better (assuming, oddly, that you take the Fighter archetype for Point-Blank Shot); while maintaining strong accuracy.
All this is done at the cost of two actions for hunting a target and entering a stance though.

This means that a mathematical approach of the issue is going to give out Rangers as having less damage then Fighters with archery. While this is of course true, real games tend to be a lot different since combat doesn't happen in a big empty blank vacuum and thus spending the first round buffing for combat isn't always as harmful as it might appear to be on paper.

TLDR: You do not need to choose between combat feats and animal companion feats to make a viable archer ranger because Greater Distracting Shot is the only required feat at level 16 or 18.
The rest is just handed to you as class feature (Hunt Target).
That and Point-Blank Shot which you can get with your 2nd and 4th level class feats, just in time for Full-Grown Companion at level 6.

With this set-up, you can achieve comparable hit chance and better damage output as an archer ranger compared to an archer fighter. You do have to burn two actions during first round though, and two class feats just for Point-Blank Shot.

Easy fixes: have Point-Blank Shot be available to Rangers as a class feat at 1st or 2nd level.
Have a feat allow you to hunt a target as part of rolling initiative (and remove Swift Target or else have it come up earlier, it's way too late as it is now).

[N N 959]

dnoisette wrote:

However, the ranger gets Hunt Target and Greater Distracting Shot by level 16, which the fighter does not.

So your entire rebuttal is that by level 16 a Ranger might be doing more damage at Range than a Fighter...if they are willing to give up a bunch of damage in the first round?

Let me also point out that Distracting Shot is rendered moot if the target is in difficult natural terrain. How great to have a feat costing you two class feats rendered pointless once you're in your the wilderness?!!

Quote:

3. All of the above examples assume 3 attacks per round

Which is a bad assumption and not possible with a Companion as the rules stand now. Scenarios go out of their way to harry, harass, and hamper martials from getting full attacks in combat. Movement, alone, takes away one attack. And since Archery Rangers can no longer get Improved Precise Shot, cover and screening are eating into one's attack numbers.

To be more accurate, you're glossing over one crucial aspect of Distracting Shot: You have to crit or hit twice to get any bonus. That's not going to happen with regularity. It's also not going to happen much in the early part of a combat where the Ranger is often having to move due to combat, spell effects, terrain issues, etc.

Quote:

However, I agree that the issue here is that the ranger has to spend an action to hunt their target and possibly use Master Monster Hunter as well if you so desired.

You forgot that Favored Aim, the one "archery" ability for Rangers, takes two actions. That means you aren't doing anything but attacking if you want to get a Distracting Shot. Your AC sits idle, and you're having to only shoot your Hunted Target.

The Ranger's abilities need to not be dependent upon Hunt Target. The fundamental problem with the Ranger is the cascade problem with having to constantly be choosing a new Hunt Target and losing an action to do it. Really, Hunt Target needs to be scrapped. Because of it, the Ranger is crap at attacking anything that's not a Hunt Target. I think the problem is people are looking at 17th level and saying "WOW! You get a third attack at -6!...and OMG!!! it's -4 with an Agile weapon!" But the fact is you aren't using an Agile weapon as an archer, so that's an attack -6. More to the point, you aren't likely to even get a third attack with all the action cost. And I'll also point out that at 17th level the benefit of HT on the 2nd attack is +1 as compared with level 1.

+1....

The Ranger waits 17 level and gets an extra +1 on a second attack. Are you kidding me? How much damage is Sneak Attack doing at 17th level?

The whole Hunt Target mechanics is screwing over the Ranger throughout its entire progression.

[dnoisette]

N N 959 wrote:

So your entire rebuttal is that by level 16 a Ranger might be doing more damage at Range than a Fighter...if they are willing to give up a bunch of damage in the first round?

Let me also point out that Distracting Shot is rendered moot if the target is in difficult natural terrain. How great to have a feat costing you two class feats rendered pointless once you're in your the wilderness?!!

Okay, since you obviously could not be bothered to read the entire post, let me prove my point with an example.

At 4th level, a ranger using Point-Blank Shot and having a bear animal companion does on average:
3.5 (shortbow) + 1 (STR 14) + 2 (PBS) + 4.5 (bear extra d8 slashing damage) = 11 damage per attack.
That's 22 total damage for 2 successful attacks, made at +0/-4.

A 4th level still, a fighter does on average:
3.5 (shortbow) + 1 (STR 14) + 2 (PBS) = 6.5 damage par attack.
They have Double Shot, but can't use that against the same target.
They have 3 attacks at +0/-5/-10 against the same target and deal 19.5 damage on average.

You don't have to have an animal companion as a ranger.
Even if you do, the action loss of having to command your animal companion still results in better average damage.
And that's by level 4, not level 16.

Greater Distracting Shot just helps with accuracy. If you can't use it, no big deal, it's not needed to have the build work.
Besides, I've never seen high-end level 15-20 fights actually take place in wide open difficult natural terrain...

N N 959 wrote:

Which is a bad assumption and not possible with a Companion as the rules stand now. Scenarios go out of their way to harry, harass, and hamper martials from getting full attacks in combat. Movement, alone, takes away one attack. And since Archery Rangers can no longer get Improved Precise Shot, cover and screening are eating into one's attack numbers.

To be more accurate, you're glossing over one crucial aspect of Distracting Shot: You have to crit or hit twice to get any bonus. That's not going to happen with regularity. It's also not going to happen much in the early part of a combat where the Ranger is often having to move due to combat, spell effects, terrain issues, etc.

I've already covered the issue of having to command the animal companion above, and proven that this is not a DPS loss.

You do just fine with 2 attacks a round.
If you have to move around to reposition, so does the fighter and so they get only 2 attacks when you just get 1 and so my point still stands: average damage is higher for the Ranger than the Fighter, from level 4 onwards.

About Distracting Shot: there's a reason I called out Greater Distracting Shot and not the lesser version of it (which is not even a prerequisite for the last).
You hit once in a round (it does not need to be a critical success), target is flat-footed to your attacks until the start of your next round.
You hit twice, it's flat-footed until the end of your next round.
Once more: you do not need this feat. It's there and it helps and it would be stupid to not take it but it's not needed.
You still have more damage than the fighter.
You still have similar accuracy.
Even without it.
All because of having Hunt Target.

If the Fighter is using Multishot Paragon, they get better accuracy, but you get way more damage because they can't use Point-Blank Shot with Multishot Paragon while you can use it with Hunt Target.

N N 959 wrote:

You forgot that Favored Aim, the one "archery" ability for Rangers, takes two actions. That means you aren't doing anything but attacking if you want to get a Distracting Shot. Your AC sits idle, and you're having to only shoot your Hunted Target.

You seem to have the rules confused here.

Favored Aim is in no way required for Distracting Shot and I have no idea what you're suggesting.
Favored Aim is bad, because you have a better shot at dealing higher average damage with hitting a target that has cover by firing twice at your regular attack penalty rather than by using two actions in order to fire once with this feat.
That's why I never suggested taking it.
That's why I said no specific feat is needed to make a great archery ranger, outside maybe of Greater Distracting Shot.

N N 959 wrote:

The Ranger's abilities need to not be dependent upon Hunt Target. The fundamental problem with the Ranger is the cascade problem with having to constantly be choosing a new Hunt Target and losing an action to do it. Really, Hunt Target needs to be scrapped. Because of it, the Ranger is crap at attacking anything that's not a Hunt Target. I think the problem is people are looking at 17th level and saying "WOW! You get a third attack at -6!...and OMG!!! it's -4 with an Agile weapon!" But the fact is you aren't using an Agile weapon as an archer, so that's an attack -6. More to the point, you aren't likely to even get a third attack with all the action cost. And I'll also point out that at 17th level the benefit of HT on the 2nd attack is +1 as compared with level 1.

+1....

The Ranger waits 17 level and gets an extra +1 on a second attack. Are you kidding me? How much damage is Sneak Attack doing at 17th level?

The whole Hunt Target mechanics is screwing over the Ranger throughout its entire progression.

I've already covered the not having a 3rd attack aspect of your rant.

Still more damage with 2 attacks per round as opposed to 3 attacks per round for fighter.

I have absolutely zero idea why you mention Sneak Attack since I really don't recall suggesting picking up the Rogue Archetype and Ranger has no other mean to even get SA.

As for Greater Distracting Shot, the whole point is you can make your targets flat-footed not for sneak attacking, but for the AC penalty.
A Fighter archer cannot make their targets flat-footed to make them easier to hit (maybe they do if they go with the Rogue Archetype but demoralizing the enemy is not always an option).
A Ranger archer can. This, combined with Hunt Target, results in similar accuracy with the Fighter using Multishot Paragon.

Fighter at level 17 with Multishot Paragon: -2/-2/-2, 3 attacks a round (assuming you're not quick, else -2/-2/-2/-5).
Ranger at level 17 with Hunt Target and Greater Distracting Shot: +2/-1, 2 attacks a round (assuming you're not quick, else +2/-1/-4).
You still have more damage per attack than the fighter, you do not need that 3rd attack!

Hunt Target is not screwing over the ranger.
I will agree with you on ONE thing though: it does need to be changed so that a ranger can switch from one target to another with a free action if first one dies during combat. Problem solved.

Next time, before you aggressively attack someone else's post, I suggest you take some time to read more carefully and consider what they're suggesting so you can disagree in a more constructive fashion and be able to provide useful suggestions.

[Rysky]

Out of all the Rangers I've played... I have actually never used any type of bow with them.

[N N 959]

dnoisette wrote:

Okay, since you obviously could not be bothered to read the entire post, let me prove my point with an example.

I read every word. Your post is all over the board. You're tryin to talk about how great Hunt Target is, except you're needing to invoke Animal Companion damage and a Point-Blank Shot which Ranger's don't even get.

Quote:

All because of having Hunt Target.

And it's a bold face lie. Your solution of extra damage requires Point Blank Shot which isn't available to Rangers.

Quote:

nothing prevents a ranger that took the fighter archetype and basic maneuver for Point-Blank Shot to use it AND achieve respectable hit chance at the same time.

You aren't talking about a Ranger, you're talking about a multi-class build.

Your analysis is one contradiction after another. You state this:

Quote:

You don't have to have an animal companion as a ranger.

Even if you do, the action loss of having to command your animal companion still results in better average damage.
And that's by level 4, not level 16.

Except your analysis has the Ranger getting +2 damage from a Feat they don't get and another 4.5 from an animal companion. We take that bogus damage away (since you stated the Ranger doesn't need an AC) and the Ranger is not getting 11 points per hit, they are getting 4.5 compared to the Fighters 6.5 per hit.

And guess what....there is only ONE companion that gives a Ranger an extra d8 on damage. So you're the fact that you're having to require the Ranger take the bear to even have a shot at doing decent damage is what Youtube would call an epic fail.

By ignoring the impact of giving up attacks in the first round, you make a critical oversight. A Ranger that has to use two actions to Hunt Target and then Command Animal is only doing 9 (or 4.5 without a bear) points in Round 1 compared to the Fighters 12. If the Ranger tries to use Monster Hunter, the Ranger gets ZERO damage. That ZERO damage the first round, puts the Ranger in a deficit, that they essentially never pay off. Why? Because every time they have to switch targets and move the animal and then use Monster Hunter, they get ZERO damage, and that's assuming the Ranger doesn't have to move.

Another aspect of your analysis which you have completely overlooked is magic weapons. A Fighter with PBS, is going to use a longbow and do the same damage as a Fighter with shortbow at a higher accuracy past 60 feet The Ranger, who does not have PBS, is now in the rear view mirror of damage.

Yet another gap in your analysis is the fact that as soon as the Ranger has to attack something that isn't designated, the Ranger is totally screwed because so many of the Ranger's add-ons require you attack the HT. In actual game play, this happens a lot. Theory-crafting doesn't do a good job of anticipating actual game play. Its is because of this fact, Hunt Target is totally screwing over the Ranger.

Quote:

You seem to have the rules confused here.

Favored Aim is in no way required for Distracting Shot and I have no idea what you're suggesting.

I'm not confused about anything. I never said that FA was required for anything. I said that this is the only low level Archery feat given to Rangers and it is a horrible feat. What's mind blowing about FA is that it's the same feat given to a higher level Fighter , but the Ranger's feat is also tied to HT. So you can't use it on anything but your HT.

Quote:

it does need to be changed so that a ranger can switch from one target to another with a free action if first one dies during combat. Problem solved.

No. Problem is not solved. Even if HT could be designated as a Free action, it's a horrible feat.

Quote:

I have absolutely zero idea why you mention Sneak Attack since I really don't recall suggesting picking up the Rogue Archetype and Ranger has no other mean to even get SA.

Because Sneak Attack is the Rogues signature ability and it is far more useful and does for more damage than Hunt Target.

I'm going to repeat something you're totally ignoring: A +1 on any attack adds 5% damage to expected damage. In the new system, it increases one's crit % by 5%. However, given the -4 to the Ranger's second attack, it may not even be possible to crit. HT is adding +1 up until 17th level, where it adds another +1. The rest of the crap put on the HT is essentially worthless. +2 Seek/Track???? Really...Track? What game is Paizo playing?

Quote:

so you can disagree in a more constructive fashion and be able to provide useful suggestions.

You want some constructive criticism? Quite doctoring your analysis. Quit theory-crating and go play the class. Quit claiming Hunt Target is great when you're enitre analysis is based on giving the Ranger abilities and feats he doesn't have.

Hunt Target needs to be scrapped.

I get what Paizo is trying to do. They obviously had this concept of the Ranger being able to focus in on a target and carve it up. Paizo tied nearly every damage ability to HT. But in actual game play, this is concept is horrible. Pathfinder combat isn't series of 1v1 battles. Combatants don't get to to just sit there and hit the same target over and over until the battle is over. Targets move, they change in priority, they die, they become untargetable, or any number of things that happen which force a character to attack different targets from round to round. It is nonsensical for Paizo to tie HT to getting multiple attacks on the same target and then bombard the class punitive action taxes. It's also insulting to have Paizo talk about HT at level 17, like that's what matters. Jesus H, it shouldn't take 17 levels before the class can hold its own in combat.

[dnoisette]

N N 959 wrote:

I read every word. Your post is all over the board. You're tryin to talk about how great Hunt Target is, except you're needing to invoke Animal Companion damage and a Point-Blank Shot which Ranger's don't even get.

Animal Companion is a Ranger class feature, and I would assume the class was balanced with the idea that any ranger could potentially have an animal companion in addition to the rest.

If you don't want to play with an animal companion and pick the corresponding feat to get one, you certainly have that choice but then it's basically the same than having a Fighter say: yeah, I don't want to take Double-Shot for my archery build.

Both can do it. You obviously want the Ranger to be a better archer than the Fighter without investing anything in it.
I don't think that's gonna happen because there's always the option of having an animal companion on top of that and devs have to consider this when balancing the class.

If your Ranger is already the best archer in the game and they decide to go with an Animal Companion as well, class balance is out the window.

N N 959 wrote:

Except your analysis has the Ranger getting +2 damage from a Feat they don't get and another 4.5 from an animal companion. We take that bogus damage away (since you stated the Ranger doesn't need an AC) and the Ranger is not getting 11 points per hit, they are getting 4.5 compared to the Fighters 6.5 per hit.

And guess what....there is only ONE companion that gives a Ranger an extra d8 on damage. So you're the fact that you're having to require the Ranger take the bear to even have a shot at doing decent damage is what Youtube would call an epic fail.

By ignoring the impact of giving up attacks in the first round, you make a critical oversight. A Ranger that has to use two actions to Hunt Target and then Command Animal is only doing 9 (or 4.5 without a bear) points in Round 1 compared to the Fighters 12. If the Ranger tries to use Monster Hunter, the Ranger gets ZERO damage. That ZERO damage the first round, puts the Ranger in a deficit, that they essentially never pay off. Why? Because every time they have to switch targets and move the animal and then use Monster Hunter, they get ZERO damage, and that's assuming the Ranger doesn't have to move.

Another aspect of your analysis which you have completely overlooked is magic weapons. A Fighter with PBS, is going to use a longbow and do the same damage as a Fighter with shortbow at a higher accuracy past 60 feet The Ranger, who does not have PBS, is now in the rear view mirror of damage.

Yet another gap in your analysis is the fact that as soon as the Ranger has to attack something that isn't designated, the Ranger is totally screwed because so many of the Ranger's add-ons require you attack the HT. In actual game play, this happens a lot. Theory-crafting doesn't do a good job of anticipating actual game play. Its is because of this fact, Hunt Target is totally screwing over the Ranger.

Yes, there's only one good animal companion, and it's the bear. I'm very critical of animal companions for this reason, and I did call out the fact that you're basically stuck with a bear to be an effective Ranger archer.

But that's an issue with animal companions, not the Ranger class itself.

Yes, Hunt Target requires you to spend an action.
Until they get to level 14, Fighters will spend an action to enter a stance anyway as well.
When they want to switch to Slippery Shooter or Multishot Paragon, they have to spend another action.

If a Fighter is using PBS, they lack the accuracy from Multishot Paragon.
If they're using Multishot Paragon, they're likely taking the Volley penalty with every single one of their shots.
Meanwhile, the Ranger gets to use a Longbow reliably, without ever incuring the Volley Penalty, because they get to use PBS all the time.
It's very rare in any of the official modules and APs that I've had to fire past 30 feet to hit an enemy (except maybe in Kingmaker...).

I also used the Guide archetype a lot in Pathfinder 1.0. I never had issue with attacking the same target throughout multiple rounds. It doesn't seem to happen a lot that you have to attack a different target.
You make it sound like it happens every round or so...

N N 959 wrote:

I'm not confused about anything. I never said that FA was required for anything. I said that this is the only low level Archery feat given to Rangers and it is a horrible feat. What's mind blowing about FA is that it's the same feat given to a higher level Fighter , but the Ranger's feat is also tied to HT. So you can't use it on anything but your HT.

Yep, it's bad, nothing to argue here. But then all classes seem to have such trap options, which is another debate.

I would appreciate it doing something more useful but I doubt that'll change and because you always have a choice of which feats you want to take, you don't have to go with a bad option if you don't want to.

N N 959 wrote:

Because Sneak Attack is the Rogues signature ability and it is far more useful and does for more damage than Hunt Target.

I'm going to repeat something you're totally ignoring: A +1 on any attack adds 5% damage to expected damage. In the new system, it increases one's crit % by 5%. However, given the -4 to the Ranger's second attack, it may not even be possible to crit. HT is adding +1 up until 17th level, where it adds another +1. The rest of the crap put on the HT is essentially worthless. +2 Seek/Track???? Really...Track? What game is Paizo playing?

I agree with the part about Track.

However, I wasn't arguing about the worthiness of an extra +1 or +5 or whatever.
I was merely comparing the Ranger's accuracy with HT to the Fighter's accuracy with Multishot Paragon (which they get at level 16 so only one level earlier than Ranger) and it felt about the same, which is what I wanted to point out.
You hate on HT but, while it clearly isn't amazing on its own, the Fighter does not get a much better option.
Which is all that matters to me.

I don't want Rangers to make Fighters look bad at archery.
Both classes should be equally valid choices because, while I personaly prefer my archer to have the scout or lone-wolf-surviving-in-the-wilderness flavour, that's not the case for everyone.
Some people want their archers to be a soldier, a knight, or just highly skilled warrior.
And they'll probably want to go Fighter for that, which is why it should be a valid option.

As for Sneak Attack...yeah it's really great but how many foes are immune to precision damage, flanking and critical hits?
How many foes cannot be demoralized in any way because they're immune to morale effects?
Meanwhile, Hunt Target works on everything, always.
I would certainly expect a class feature that has more hard counters to be stronger when it does apply.

If you're suggesting the Ranger should have access to an always on ability that compares to Sneack Attack in terms of how potent it is well...that's just not my view on class balance.

N N 959 wrote:

You want some constructive criticism? Quite doctoring your analysis. Quit theory-crating and go play the class. Quit claiming Hunt Target is great when you're enitre analysis is based on giving the Ranger abilities and feats he doesn't have.

Humm, I have? After I came out with this build, I tested it.

And my issues were not with having to take PBS or spending an action for HT.
They were with how squishy animal companions felt, which combines with lack of true healing options for the Ranger, meant the animal companion sometimes had be to pulled out of the fight early.
My GM wasn't going to just let my AC do its thing and use the work together abilty without targeting it.

I'm not saying Ranger is perfect, and I do agree with some of your suggestions:

- there should be an option for Hunt Target to reapply to another enemy mid-fight without requiring an action each time
- Rangers should have access to PBS without the need to multiclass
- animal companions should have more survivability and staying power or else Rangers should have a viable option to heal them
- Master Monster Hunter should be Monster Hunter in the first place because it's the only thing that makes this crap feat worth something
- and so on...

BUT, I do not agree with your idea that Hunt Target is just plain bad and completely useless, nor that it has to be scrapped entirely.

I get the feeling you just don't want to play around the current strengths and abilities given to the Ranger and just want another version of the Fighter or Rogue class with a ranger feel.

I don't think that's possible nor that it should be because what's the point of having different classes that can play as an archer if they all feel the same in the end?

[Draco18s]

dnoisette wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I read every word. Your post is all over the board. You're tryin to talk about how great Hunt Target is, except you're needing to invoke Animal Companion damage and a Point-Blank Shot which Ranger's don't even get.

Animal Companion is a Ranger class feature, and I would assume the class was balanced with the idea that any ranger could potentially have an animal companion in addition to the rest.

No, its a feat. It is specifically a first level feat that you would take instead of Monster Hunter, Double Slice, or Crossbow Ace.

That makes it precisely as much of a class feature as Power Attack and Point Blank Shot.

[dnoisette]

But it's still a very real possibility that a first level Ranger starts with an animal companion.
And when they do, it's going to have way more impact than Monster Hunter on how the Ranger plays and what benefits they get from their 1st level feat.
Which is why I assume Rangers were balanded around the idea that an animal companion could add to their base numbers and thus the base numbers shouldn't be as high as other martial classes.

I'm not saying I like this idea, I'm just saying that's the feeling I get from the class as to how the devs chose to balance it.
The fundamental issue with giving the Ranger the ability to get an animal companion is that it seems the class was balanced with the idea in mind that they would always have one and thus the Ranger feels subpar at some specific combat styles when the player decides that they do not want the animal companion in the first place.

If the devs truly want to have the Ranger be balanced when they have an animal companion with them, then they should probably make it an automatic class feature, and not a feat choice.
Otherwise, some adjustments are necessary so that a Ranger without an animal companion can compete with other martial classes.
Mostly this is true for ranged playstyle because melee doesn't feel that bad without an animal companion.

[N N 959]

First off, even though I categorically disagree with much you have posted, it is important for us to engage in the discussion in hopes that Paizo can fix this. I want to enjoy P2, but the Ranger is such a mess, I would not play P2 as it now stands.

dnoisette wrote:

Animal Companion is a Ranger class feature, and I would assume the class was balanced with the idea that any ranger could potentially have an animal companion in addition to the rest.

This is an important point you bring up and I'd love to hear Paizo address this. On the surface, it would seem that Paizo believes the action cost of the A/C is balanced against the damage. But in order to benefit from the A/C the Ranger has to spend actions and that directly undermines Hunt Target = Bad design. Worse, the Ranger continues to get feats that are triggered off of HT.

Quote:

if you don't want to play with an animal companion and pick the corresponding feat to get one, you certainly have that choice but then it's basically the same than having a Fighter say: yeah, I don't want to take Double-Shot for my archery build.

No, that's completely false. An animal companion was essentially free to a Ranger in P1. Double-Shot was not free in P1 and in no way iconically tied to the Fighter class.

Quote:

Both can do it. You obviously want the Ranger to be a better archer than the Fighter without investing anything in it.

False. I want the Ranger to be a competent archer without having to give up everything that made the Ranger a Ranger. This is how it worked in P1. The Style feats given for free made the Ranger competent at whatever style the Ranger chose. It didn't cost Wild Empathy, Favored Enemy bonuses, a serviceable companion, or anything else. Paizo has screwed this up in P2. Instead of giving Rangers a combat style that makes them adequate in combat, we've got to choose between combat or theme/faux utility. That's just terrible way to implement the class. The Ranger was never overpowered in P1. Why is Paizo forcing the class to give up combat to get something like Wild Empathy? It makes no sense.

Quote:

I don't think that's gonna happen because there's always the option of having an animal companion on top of that and devs have to consider this when balancing the class.

Then GIVE all Rangers a Companion without robbing them of a combat style and you can balance for it. By juxtaposing a Companion with combat feats, Paizo is creating more traps for players.

Quote:

If your Ranger is already the best archer in the game and they decide to go with an Animal Companion as well, class balance is out the window.

No, it's not balance out the window. "Balance" doesn't exist. It's a myth. Second, you don't "balance" classes against each other, you give each class an area where that class gets to be dominate. It's perfectly valid for the Ranger to be "best" at some niche. Right now, that niche doesn't exist.

Quote:

Yes, Hunt Target requires you to spend an action.

Until they get to level 14, Fighters will spend an action to enter a stance anyway as well.

You're not getting it, dn. The Ranger has to use HT to get ANY of its benefits. With the exception of the Bear's slash bonus, the Ranger gets NO bonus against anything that is not a hunted target. The Fighter has to enter the stance ONCE per combat, not every target. Once in the stance, Point-Blank Shot works against ANY target.

Quote:

I also used the Guide archetype a lot in Pathfinder 1.0. I never had issue with attacking the same target throughout multiple rounds. It doesn't seem to happen a lot that you have to attack a different target.

Yes, it does. If you've got any tactical sense, there are frequently times when you need to choose different targets. If Paizo adds alchemical arrows, you're going to want to use them on different targets. I frequently pepper spell casters with bleed arrows. More importantly, being forced to target the SAME target to get any benefit from one's class feats creates a tremendous amount of balance problems.

I'm going to repeat what I posted above. Paizo clearly had this idea that Rangers would go around using HT and be incredibly effective, but the implementation has fundamental problems:

1) Hunt Target's base benefit is just plain....horrible. A +1 on a 2nd attack that you may not get and a +2 on 3rd attack that you is pointless to take and you NEVER get with an animal companion doesn't make sense. Hunt Target fights against the other abilities given tot he Ranger;

2) All the Ranger's add on combat is based on HT. This forces the Ranger to constantly have to focus on the designated target and ignore more opportune targets or higher priority targets;

3) The Ranger has never been about focusing on ONE target. Favored Enemy worked against an entire category of targets. In actual use, I've chaffed against having to figure out a Hunt Target and then being penalized for not attacking it the entire combat. One of the advantages of Ranged combat it is being able to switch targets quickly.

4) The ability of Hunt Target does not represent hunting in any way shape or form. So thematically, it's not even compelling.

Quote:

I was merely comparing the Ranger's accuracy with HT to the Fighter's accuracy with Multishot Paragon (which they get at level 16 so only one level earlier than Ranger) and it felt about the same, which is what I wanted to point out.

Whether or not that's true, dude...you're talking about level 17!!! What % of players are going to get to level 17 with a Ranger when it is garbage through the first five levels?

[quoteYou hate on HT but, while it clearly isn't amazing on its own, the Fighter does not get a much better option.
Which is all that matters to me.

At this point, HT is so bad and so off-putting, I can't give a rat's about the Fighter. I've played an archer Ranger in P2 and it's pitiful. And that's with an A/C. You know what's amazing on its own? Retributive Strike, Sneak Attack, Rage, and being able to get AoO's.

Quote:

I get the feeling you just don't want to play around the current strengths and abilities given to the Ranger and just want another version of the Fighter or Rogue class with a ranger feel.

You couldn't be more wrong. I want a class whose thematic underpinnings have actually use in the game the way it's GM'd and in the way scenarios are written. In P1, combat styles worked. They weren't to Favored Enemies or Favored Terrain. The Ranger has spells and that gave the class agency. I want tracking to be useful beyond just following tracks.

Paizo has turned the class into the Hunter, not the Ranger. Paizo needs to give the Ranger back all its thematic abilities and stop forcing a player to choose between theme and combat.

[N N 959]

dnoisette wrote:

If the devs truly want to have the Ranger be balanced when they have an animal companion with them, then they should probably make it an automatic class feature, and not a feat choice.

In P1, the companions was juxtaposed to an ability that gave weak version of FE to everyone. So the trade-off was between individual effectiveness and group effectiveness. I'd much rather we were choosing between those options.

[JoelF847]

Saving Throws - why do rangers get expert in Will? Seems off flavor at least as a base ability. Monks are known for good saves across the board, but not rangers, Fort and Reflex make sense though.

Trackless step - ability in itself is fine, but why limited to rangers only? I’d think druids should have this as an option at 1st level, and barbarians should at 4th-8th or so.

Nature’s Edge - Why only from natural terrain or a snare? At the very least it should also include difficult terrain created by a primal spell as well, if not all difficult terrain.

Light armor proficiency - why can’t rangers increase their proficiency in light and medium armor? For that matter, why can’t rogues or barbarians do the same? In fact, no character seems able to be Legendary at light armor.

Crossbow Ace - I know this is linked to hunt target, but there should be a way to increase crossbow effectiveness for everyone, not just rangers.

Monster Hunter and Monster Warden - There should be a time limit on this. Without one, you could sneak around, recall knowledge on every monster at an encounter site, then go back to your party and tell them about each, and all have a +1 to attack all of them on your next strike, even if you don’t encounter them for hours, days, or even years. Should be limited to Strikes in the next round or minute at most.

Favored Aim - this is identical to the fighter Incredible Aim, except rangers can get it at 2nd level. There shouldn’t be identical feats with different names in the first place, and there shouldn’t be a level different like this either. A fighter archer should be able to be just as good as a ranger archer.

Quick Draw - this should be a general feat

Stalker’s Shot - why would this require the target to fail Seeking you? Couldn’t it just trigger because they try to Seek you - even if they find you that shouldn’t impact your reaction time. If you took the reaction, you wouldn’t get the benefits of being unseen is all.

Wild Empathy - does this really need to be level 6 for rangers? I’d think 2 or 4 if not 1. Druids get it for free at 1st, but is it really a problem if rangers want it early?

Quick Snares - shouldn’t this be written with a 3 action icon and then the effect is craft a snare which normally takes 1 minute to craft?

Master Monster Hunter - this doesn’t make sense - why would a ranger be able to recall knowledge about completely unnatural creatures using Nature, no matter how skilled with it they are. Why not say rangers can speak other languages, swim, diplomacise bluff, or any other skill with Nature in that case? There’s not enough of a logical reason for this power to exist.

Sense the Unseen - as a reaction, how does this work when the trigger is making the Seek action check? Do you wait to see if you succeed, and if you don’t, then use your reaction? Or do you just use the reaction first, and never roll? Seems like it would be a lot more clear if this wasn’t a reaction, and it said that when you Seek, failures count as successes (and possibly critical failures count as failures)

Companion Bond, Warden’s Boon, Shared Target, and Triple Threat - these all say they only grant the base benefits of Hunt Target, and not additional benefits of abilities which improved hunt target, but there aren’t any such abilities I can find. Even if there will be some, at least one should exist in the playtest.

[Draco18s]

JoelF847 wrote:

Monster Hunter and Monster Warden - There should be a time limit on this. Without one, you could sneak around, recall knowledge on every monster at an encounter site, then go back to your party and tell them about each, and all have a +1 to attack all of them on your next strike, even if you don’t encounter them for hours, days, or even years. Should be limited to Strikes in the next round or minute at most.

Except that it's +1 to a single strike. Its not even a permanent +1, or a full round. Not to mention needing to CRITICALLY SUCCEED the knowledge check...

Worst use of an action, ever.

JoelF847 wrote:

Quick Snares - shouldn’t this be written with a 3 action icon and then the effect is craft a snare which normally takes 1 minute to craft?

You shouldn't be taking this anyway. 3 attacks are better than a snare.

(oh, and snare kits weight 8 bulk, sure hope you have a STR of 16!)

Quote:

Companion Bond, Warden’s Boon, Shared Target, and Triple Threat - these all say they only grant the base benefits of Hunt Target, and not additional benefits of abilities which improved hunt target, but there aren’t any such abilities I can find. Even if there will be some, at least one should exist in the playtest.

Pretty sure it refers to the bonus granted by Monster Hunter and Monster Warden...but yeah, there are no direct boosts, so...unclear.

[LordVanya]

JoelF847 wrote:

Favored Aim - this is identical to the fighter Incredible Aim, except rangers can get it at 2nd level. There shouldn’t be identical feats with different names in the first place, and there shouldn’t be a level different like this either. A fighter archer should be able to be just as good as a ranger archer.

Actually, Favored Aim requires you to use it on a Hunted Target, therefore it is not identical. In fact, it is so much more limited than Incredible Aim that it accounts somewhat for it being 6 levels lower.

Draco18s wrote:

Quote:

Companion Bond, Warden’s Boon, Shared Target, and Triple Threat - these all say they only grant the base benefits of Hunt Target, and not additional benefits of abilities which improved hunt target, but there aren’t any such abilities I can find. Even if there will be some, at least one should exist in the playtest.

Pretty sure it refers to the bonus granted by Monster Hunter and Monster Warden...but yeah, there are no direct boosts, so...unclear.

Actually, Masterful Hunter improves the base bonus of Hunt Target and since it is arguably an ability as defined in the glossary, it does not apply either.

[Voss]

Quote:

Crossbow Ace - I know this is linked to hunt target, but there should be a way to increase crossbow effectiveness for everyone, not just rangers.

Be a cleric of Abadar (or multiclass), pick up Deadly Simplicity feat, get a damage die increase 100% of the time.

Should stack with crossbow ace as well, to end at d12 +(half wisdom) when you hunt target or reload.

[Joey Cote]

Have to admit I am a bit conflicted on the ranger. There are weird class feats I just don't think are very good (Monster Hunter feats and anything to do with snares) and others that are good but very specific (crossbow ace) and push you towards one weapon. Then there are things like animal companion, which if you end up taking your just going to have to plan to take nearly every feat that benefits the companion's type (by which I mean advancing to adult, savage, etc as opposed to side by side feat). Then there are skills that either help those previous skills in different ways or help with stealth. Tons of options an the class fairly easily allows for multiclassing.

The class feels like it is a bit all over the place, but allows for some flexibility in build while still remaining decent. I think when we get to the point of doing the 5th(?) stage of the playtest I am going to try an halfling ranger either with a crossbow or halfling staffsling and an animal companion.

[N N 959]

Joey Cote wrote:

Have to admit I am a bit conflicted on the ranger.

I'm not. The class needs to be overhauled. What Paizo has given us is the Hunter...not the Ranger. Maybe the Hunter would be a fun class, but it's not a Ranger. Who ever was in charge of building this version, didn't design to appeal to people who enjoyed Rangers in 1e, they built it to attract people who don't like the 1e version.

Quote:

The class feels like it is a bit all over the place

It is. And I've figured out why. In 1e, the class got Combat Styles which were character paths/archetype-lite. But Paizo has made "customization" the theme in 2e and I think they figured they'd yank a bunch of the theme stuff off the Ranger and let people opt out of it, with the idea that the class could then naturally fill the Hunter/Slayer/Ranger 1e classes, without having to build any dedicated archetypes. The problem is they screwed the class over with Hunt Target and they are juxtaposing theme choices with combat choices. So now, it isn't 1e Ranger, and it isn't a Hunter or a Slayer either.

Quote:

I think when we get to the point of doing the 5th(?) stage of the playtest I am going to try an halfling ranger either with a crossbow or halfling staffsling and an animal companion.

If you're talking about that halfling weapon that does 1d10, you realize that if the build is really combat effective, it's because the staffsling is ridiculous.

[Joey Cote]

I don't see the staffsling as ridiculous, its an exotic ranged weapon that takes a feat just to be able to use, requires two hands to use (which can be a problem for a lot of classes) and has a reload of 1 as opposed to bows which reload for free. A minor consideration is, how often do you see opponents carrying slings? Which means on long adventures you need to carry a pile of sling bullets.

[Igor Horvat]

You can play druid with fighter multiclass and be better "ranger" than ranger.

[Draco18s]

Joey Cote wrote:

and has a reload of 1 as opposed to bows which reload for free.

Good luck pulling off that 3rd attack for the best benefit of Hunt Target!

[Gaterie]

N N 959 wrote:

At this point, HT is so bad and so off-putting, I can't give a rat's about the Fighter. I've played an archer Ranger in P2 and it's pitiful. And that's with an A/C. You know what's amazing on its own? Retributive Strike, Sneak Attack, Rage, and being able to get AoO's.

Err...

Rage and Retributive strike are awful abilities. Sneak attack, I dunno.

Rage is a "meh" ability on its own, plus it's a Barbarian ability - Barbarians don't get any accuracy boost. So a raging Barbarians deals OK damages during 3 rounds, and then no damages. That is, if he survives during 3 rounds with his abysmall AC. Rage is terrible, the Barbarian is one of the worse classes in the game. At least, your ranger gain weapon expertise at level 3.

Retributive strike is easily negated by the enemy; trying to get in position to activate it takes more efforts for your team than the effort needed for team monsters to avoid it. A paladin is more efficient if he simply forgets he has this ability.

You're right, HT is awful, and it is anti-synergistic with every ranger's feat (it does nothing with double slice, it doesn't work well with an AC and the action you need to command it, it doesn't work well with crossbow and the action you need to reload...) (... plus the tracking bonus on a prey you can already see or hear). I don't think I'm able to create something so poorly-designed. In the other hand, it's on par with Rage and Retributive strike.

You know what's awesome? To be an expert with weapons at level 1 and a master at level 3 - with max AC on top because you can wear any armor. The end. That's the only ability worth it as a martial - everything else is just wasted paper filled with colorful-but-unusable abilities. Don't envy the Barbarian and the Paladin, they are as useless as your ranger.

Just play a Fighter.

[Joey Cote]

Draco18s wrote:

Joey Cote wrote:

and has a reload of 1 as opposed to bows which reload for free.

Good luck pulling off that 3rd attack for the best benefit of Hunt Target!

Which is a function of how most weapons work and how scaling of pc vs npcs is practically flat. The fact that a third attack a round is massively low hit probability doesn't make a weapon that absolutely cannot fire 3 times a round better.

[N N 959]

Gaterie wrote:

Rage and Retributive strike are awful abilities.

We'll have to disagree. First and foremost, Retributive Strike is there to effect a game experience, much like Hunt Target. Paizo's intent is to give a Paladin a measure of battle field control and more importantly, change the ethos of the class to a holy defender as opposed to a cleanser.

Quote:

Retributive strike is easily negated by the enemy; trying to get in position to activate it takes more efforts for your team than the effort needed for team monsters to avoid it. A paladin is more efficient if he simply forgets he has this ability.

Not true in my experience. I played side by side with a Paladin and Retributive Strike did a lot of damage.

1) One of the intended consequences of the ability is to compel NPCS to attack the Paladin as opposed to its allies. So if the GM is employing techniques to avoid a PC who has RS, then its work as intended. That extra movement by the NPCs should make them less efficient;

2) Yes, it is somewhat circumstantial, just like most abilities in the game. But RS is more easily facilitating by teammates than Sneak Attack;

3) Once you get magic weapons, that extra damage die starts adding up real quickly, especially if you can pull off a crit or two. A -2 on a an attack takes off about 30% of your expected damage if you could crit on a 10. If not, it's only a 10% reduction. However, an extra die of damage increase your damage by 100%. So RS is adding a significant portion of extra damage and has the potential to prevent damage.

What I will concede about RS, is that it is not consistent with the 1e Paladin. For some reason Paizo has tried to reinvent both the Paladin and Ranger combat schtick. But I can certainly empathize with 1e Paladin lovers not loving the 2e Paladin.

Quote:

Barbarians don't get any accuracy boost.

They don't, but they get damage and it works out to be the same thing. +2 damage on a d12 is more than a 15% increase in damage. That's equal to an accuracy increase of +1 on an attack that can crit or a +3 on an attack that cannot crit. What's more, it's not limited to a specific target.

Quote:

At least, your ranger gain weapon expertise at level 3.

Rangers get this on ONE category of weapons. So if you choose bow, you're not getting any melee help. Barbarians get Critical Brutality which gives Crit Specializations for ANY weapon used while raging. Add that extra +1 for damage from Rage at level 3, and it trumps a +1 to attack and Crit spec on ONE weapon.

Even better, Rage isn't in direct conflict with the other class feats. You aren't being offered alternatives which undermine HT.

And, more important than anything we've talked about mechanically, Rage, unlike HT and RS, is actually the same concept as 1e. Hunt Target has nothing to do with the 1e Ranger.

Quote:

(... plus the tracking bonus on a prey you can already see or hear).

This the part I struggle with the most. What game is Paizo playing that PCs are tracking creatures they engage in with combat or after they've seen or heard them? You need to track something you haven't seen or heard and Rangers get no bonus for that.

Quote:

Don't envy the Barbarian and the Paladin, they are as useless as your ranger.

The Paladin is far from useless. In the level 5 PFS scenario, the Paladin did more than double of any other individual class. RS was about 20% to the damage total. I haven't played with a Barbarian, so I can't comment beyond theory crafting. Nevertheless, I'm not going to claim those classes are better versions of their 1e counterparts.

[Draco18s]

N N 959 wrote:

Gaterie wrote:

Rage and Retributive strike are awful abilities.

We'll have to disagree. First and foremost, Retributive Strike is there to effect a game experience, much like Hunt Target. Paizo's intent is to give a Paladin a measure of battle field control and more importantly, change the ethos of the class to a holy defender as opposed to a cleanser.

If its for battle field control, and only a measure, why does it have nine feats? Attack of Opportunity (which is superior in the vast majority of situations) only has two.

[Gaterie]

N N 959 wrote:

They don't, but they get damage and it works out to be the same thing. +2 damage on a d12 is more than a 15% increase in damage. That's equal to an accuracy increase of +1 on an attack that can crit or a +3 on an attack that cannot crit. What's more, it's not limited to a specific target.

At low level, they deal as much damages as a fighter while raging. At the same time, they get a penalty to AC - they are far less durable than a Fighter. If they manage to survive until round 4, their damages drop to 0 - or they can attack for low damages, get a -4 AC penalty, and be insta-killed.

That's before level 5. A +3 damage is "meh OK" on 1d12+4, it's less noticeable on 2d12+4.

In other words: at low level, during 3 rounds they are fighter with low defense. At round 4 their damages drop - and they don't get better defenses - , and at higher level their damages drop - and they die as fast. That's before taking into account trap options like giant totem.

Barbarians are useless. Just play a Fighter.

Quote:

Rangers get this on ONE category of weapons. So if you choose bow, you're not getting any melee help. Barbarians get Critical Brutality which gives Crit Specializations for ANY weapon used while raging. Add that extra +1 for damage from Rage at level 3, and it trumps a +1 to attack and Crit spec on ONE weapon.

If you choose bows, you have a bonus when ranged. Barbarians can't have any bonus with ranged weapons. You can't pretend it's a disadvantage to have the choice between ranged and melee while the barbarian doesn't have the choice.

Barbarians have the crit spec with any melee weapon they're using, but how many melee weapons are they using at the same time? Hint: as many or less than a ranger or a fighter.

Quote:

Not true in my experience. I played side by side with a Paladin and Retributive Strike did a lot of damage.

1) One of the intended consequences of the ability is to compel NPCS to attack the Paladin as opposed to its allies. So if the GM is employing techniques to avoid a PC who has RS, then its work as intended. That extra movement by the NPCs should make them less efficient;

2) Yes, it is somewhat circumstantial, just like most abilities in the game. But RS is more easily facilitating by teammates than Sneak Attack;

3) Once you get magic weapons, that extra damage die starts adding up real quickly, especially if you can pull off a crit or two. A -2 on a an attack takes off about 30% of your expected damage if you could crit on a 10. If not, it's only a 10% reduction. However, an extra die of damage increase your damage by 100%. So RS is adding a significant portion of extra damage and has the potential to prevent damage.

you're seriously arguing enemies are less efficient because they move, strike, strike instead of strike, strike, strike?

Fun fact 1: thanks to MAP, move+strike*2 has almost the same damage output as strike*3.

Fun fact 2: you can't position yourself to protect each of your teammates. If you protect the rogue, the opponent can just go away and vaporize the wizard.

Fun fact 3: wizards don't like to go in melee. If you protect the wizard, you probably aren't in melee - and you probably aren't contributing to the fight.

Fun fact 4: if the ally you're protecting moves, he's not in range of your protection anymore. In other words, Ret. strike is far more constraining for your team than for monster team.

Fun fact 5: if an opponent has reach, you can't protect anyone anymore.

Ret. strike becomes functional with AO. This means, during 5 level it's just useless (5 level! 25% of the whole campaign if the camapign goes to level 20. And AO costs a feat that could have been used to improve your righteous ally (... not to mention, one of those feat prevents you from using Ret. strike - the paladin is as anti-synergistic as the ranger). At level 5, the only way for Ret. strike to deal 20% of the paladin's DPR is if the DM plays dumb - or if the only monsters are oozes and uncommanded skeletons.

A base class ability shouldn't require a mid-level feat to be functional.

[N N 959]

Draco18s wrote:

If its for battle field control, and only a measure, why does it have nine feats? Attack of Opportunity (which is superior in the vast majority of situations) only has two.

i'm not sure what question your asking?

Paizo has decided to make RS a pivot point for the Paladin's, very similar to HT for the Ranger. Paizo has rebranded/packaged the Paladin as more of a defender. The class has been given abilities that are intended to influence behavior of NPCs and discourage them from attacking a Paladin's allies or at least lessen the effect in ways that other Classes can't.

What I like about RS is that it is a passive ability that both deals damage and can eliminate it (in ideal circumstances). Also, it allows the player to use it affirmatively i.e. roll the dice. The player gets to see RS in effect and definitively know when the RS has had an impact. Contrast that with Hunt Target, in which you are simply adding a +1 on a second attack and only aware that you are benefited if you know you hit the number right on the mark.

What's more, RS, can influence NPCs. A Paladin and party can move tactically to maximize RS. You can't do that with HT. There's no way to manipulate the enemy with it. In fact, the opposite is true, it's far easier for an NPC to move about and deny a Ranger with a Companion ANY benefit from HT, or force the Ranger to ignore the Companion.

RS also works against anything, not just evil.

[Draco18s]

N N 959 wrote:

The class has been given abilities that are intended to influence behavior of NPCs and discourage them from attacking a Paladin's allies or at least lessen the effect in ways that other Classes can't.

If enemies are discouraged from attacking the paladin's allies than his Retributive Strike (and the nine feat upgrades to it) do precisely nothing.

Quote:

What I like about RS is that it is a passive ability that both deals damage and can eliminate it (in ideal circumstances).

You just said the ideal circumstances were where enemies were attacking the paladin, now the ideal circumstance is for enemies to not attack the paladin?

Quote:

Contrast that with Hunt Target, in which you are simply adding a +1 on a second attack and only aware that you are benefited if you know you hit the number right on the mark.

Assuming you even take two attack actions, yes. Hunt Target is bad.

Quote:

A Paladin and party can move tactically to maximize RS.

I'll let Gaterie take this one:

Gaterie wrote:

Fun fact 4: if the ally you're protecting moves, he's not in range of your protection anymore. In other words, Ret. strike is far more constraining for your team than for monster team.

[N N 959]

Draco18s wrote:

If enemies are discouraged from attacking the paladin's allies than his Retributive Strike (and the nine feat upgrades to it) do precisely nothing.

That's incorrect.

If you compel NPCs to employ tactics strictly to avoid RS, then the NPCs are going to be less effective. They will burn actions to move and fail to strike less armored opponents. And truthfully, this is about influencing GMs.

Now, whether it works out that way is a different matter and also context dependent. I did Arclord's Envy with Paladin and one of the combats was a berserk creature that just stood there and wailed on whomever. In that situation, the Paladin got in a lot of RSs.

Quote:

You just said the ideal circumstances were where enemies were attacking the paladin, now the ideal circumstance is for enemies to not attack the paladin?

No, you quoted what I said and now are trying to twist that into something it is not. The ideal situation is a low hit point creature attacks and Ally and RS intercedes and kills the the target. But that is going to be an unlikely outcome. Ideal situation for RS is different from how RS affects combat on tactical level. From a design perspective, you want RS to interfere with the enemy's normal tactical decisions. Whether that's killing off NPCs for attacking allies, or forcing NPCs to waste actions, it's all benefit and all intended.

Quote:

Quote:

Contrast that with Hunt Target, in which you are simply adding a +1 on a second attack and only aware that you are benefited if you know you hit the number right on the mark.

Assuming you even take two attack actions, yes. Hunt Target is bad.

Agreed, but the point here is that psychologically, there is no feed back loop for HT like there is for RS. A player benefits from HT and will usually not even know it unless the player OOC knows what he or she needs to hit. This is a missed opportunity. Contrast that with AoO's, Sneak Attack, and Rage, all which provide direct evidence of benefit.

Quote:

I'll let Gaterie take this one:

Gaterie wrote:

Fun fact 4: if the ally you're protecting moves, he's not in range of your protection anymore. In other words, Ret. strike is far more constraining for your team than for monster team.

If your ally moves, that's not the fault of RS. In fact, the Paladin has several abilities that convey benefits to allys standing next to the Paladin. These reinforce the value of RS, rather than undercut it like Monster Hunter or Companions, or any other ability that requires an action. It's kind mind-blowing that Paizo was so blind to how that works out, or that they thought this was a fair/fun mechanic to subject the Ranger to, despite the class not being even remotely overpowered in 1e.

[N N 959]

Gaterie wrote:

At low level, they deal as much damages as a fighter while raging. At the same time, they get a penalty to AC - they are far less durable than a Fighter.

That has always been the case. The Barbarian is benefited by increased hit points and increase damage, and in 2e, DR/-. Now, whether that remains true in 2e, I don't know. I haven't seen a Barbarian fight side by side with a Fighter.

Quote:

If they manage to survive until round 4, their damages drop to 0 - or they can attack for low damages, get a -4 AC penalty, and be insta-killed.

Given that they know they are going to fatigue, seems pretty obvious you move AWAY before that happens. A lot easier in 2e with very few AoO's. Now, I'm not saying the Rage mechanics is fun, but it's far more effective than HT.

Quote:

That's before level 5. A +3 damage is "meh OK" on 1d12+4, it's less noticeable on 2d12+4

I goes up to +4 at 7th, and continues to rise every four levels. But yes, the way magic weapons have been implemented, it tends to nerf static damage boosts.

Quote:

stuff...Barbarians are useless. Just play a Fighter.

You're getting off topic and talking about the Barbarian class as a whole. I haven't played a 2e Barbarian, so I can't tell you how the class performs nor have I seen one in action. What I will say is that out of the box, Rage is better than HT.

Quote:

If you choose bows, you have a bonus when ranged. Barbarians can't have any bonus with ranged weapons. You can't pretend it's a disadvantage to have the choice between ranged and melee while the barbarian doesn't have the choice.

I've never Raged with ranged weapons in 1e with my Barbarian. And no, the Ranger doesn't really have a choice. Rangers have to pick a category. Once you they do, they are going to pick a weapon and start enhancing that. If you've got a +1 expert composite shortbow, you aren't switching to a longsword in round 2. If a Ranger chooses a melee category, he's not going to have any more bonuses than a Barbarian at range.

Quote:

Barbarians have the crit spec with any melee weapon they're using, but how many melee weapons are they using at the same time? Hint: as many or less than a ranger or a fighter.

The point is, you can take advantage of any melee weapon you find. You aren't totally dependent on the one weapon category you've Specialized in. GM gives you a +1 Earthbraker? Not a problem. Find a +2 Greasword later on? Hand it over. True, most players will just stick with one weapon, but you've got options.

Quote:

you're seriously arguing enemies are less efficient because they move, strike, strike instead of strike, strike, strike?

Fun Fact 1: Many creatures, especially humanoids, have other options than Strike Strike Strike. So forcing them to move can deny them options, you know...like a Ranger having to move and Command an animal...

Fun Fact 2: Many creatures are not able to identify who the caster is, or simply don't care.

Fan Fact 3: The Paladin is not designed to defend the entire party. The class is clearly intended to provide a strong point from which lesser armored classes like the Rogue or Ranger can stand next to an increase their level of safety. The fact that it doesn't work out that way 100% of the time doesn't invalidate it's benefit. Contrast that with Hunt Target where there is NOTHING you teammates can do to benefit from it.

Fun Fact 4: There's nothing constraining about RS. It doesn't limit anyone's options. It simply provides a benefit for certain tactics. The idea that it is "restraining" because it doesn't reward all tactics equally is absurd.

Fun Fact 5: All tactics are not always effective all the time. If an opponent has reach, then you need to flank it and box it in. Reach is a problem for Medium creatures and that has nothing to do with RS.

Look, if you don't like Rage and RS, that's your call, but those powers, in the context of the classes they are assigned to, aren't even in the ballpark of how bad Hunt Target is.

[Ivarrwolfsong]

Rangers are really bad in PF2. They don't have access to any of the decent archery or combat feats, and the action economy of HT and ACs is a nightmare.

A better classic "Ranger" can be created thru a nomad background Archery spec fighter with a dip in the Rogue archetype. Survival, stealth, longbow arrow spam, etc... welcome to the new ranger.

[JoelF847]

N N 959 wrote:

You're getting off topic and talking about the Barbarian class as a whole.

Um...you realize this is the ranger thread, right?

[Seannoss]

I'll just add that I love to play hunters in WoW. So if you are suggesting that they made a hunter class to appeal to that, then they failed there too. This class has no appeal.

[Gaterie]

N N 959 wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

If enemies are discouraged from attacking the paladin's allies than his Retributive Strike (and the nine feat upgrades to it) do precisely nothing.

That's incorrect.

If you compel NPCs to employ tactics strictly to avoid RS, then the NPCs are going to be less effective. They will burn actions to move and fail to strike less armored opponents. And truthfully, this is about influencing GMs.

Now, whether it works out that way is a different matter and also context dependent. I did Arclord's Envy with Paladin and one of the combats was a berserk creature that just stood there and wailed on whomever. In that situation, the Paladin got in a lot of RSs.

"Seeing the monster was berserk and attacked the nearest creature with no further consideration, John-Bob the Paladin decided not to expose himself: courageously staying far away from the monster, he let it beat the s%%$ out of his friend Mauricio the rogue. That way, John-Bob was able to find openings in the monster's defenses."

Worst. Paladin. Ever.

Fun fact 6: a standard smite would allow the paladin to beat the s$$$ out of the monster while exposing himself (instead of using his friends as disposable tools to get opportunities when the monster acts in a predicable way).

Quote:

If your ally moves, that's not the fault of RS.

You're right. If he moves, it's despite RC. In the other hand, if he doesn't move, it may be the fault of RC. RC constraint your team into sub-optimal positioning more than the opponent.

Quote:

In fact, the Paladin has several abilities that convey benefits to allys standing next to the Paladin. These reinforce the value of RS, rather than undercut it like Monster Hunter or Companions, or any other ability that requires an action. It's kind mind-blowing that Paizo was so blind to how that works out, or that they thought this was a fair/fun mechanic to subject the Ranger to, despite the class not being even remotely overpowered in 1e.

Abilities like shield warden, that prevents the paladin from using RT?

What synergy do you see between an ability A, and an ability that prevents B?

[N N 959]

Gaterie wrote:

"Seeing the monster was berserk and attacked the nearest creature with no further consideration, John-Bob the Paladin decided not to expose himself: courageously staying far away from the monster, he let it beat the s!~# out of his friend Mauricio the rogue. That way, John-Bob was able to find openings in the monster's defenses."

Worst. Paladin. Ever.

Your response doesn't make any sense. The Paladin has to move into melee range to attack. In our situation, the Ranger was in melee and took a substantial amount of damage, saved the life the cleric by giving the GM a valid target to attack.

Quote:

Fun fact 6: a standard smite would allow the paladin to beat the s+!~ out of the monster while exposing himself (instead of using his friends as disposable tools to get opportunities when the monster acts in a predicable way).

Smite Evil doesn't work on non-evil creatures. In this case the creature wasn't evil. RS works on anything.

Quote:

You're right. If he moves, it's despite RC. In the other hand, if he doesn't move, it may be the fault of RC. RC constraint your team into sub-optimal positioning more than the opponent.

RS doesn't "constrain" anyone. It's disingenuous of you to try to present it that way. RS provides an incentive for me to stand next to a Paladin and punish the creature for attacking me, or force it to go out of its way to attack me to avoid retribution. There's NOTHING negative about that from an Allies point of view. If it doesn't work 100% of the time, so what. It works enough that it contributes damage. Most importantly, it gives GMs an out. They can justify intelligent creatures continuing to attack the Paladin instead of the Rogue.

Quote:

Abilities like shield warden, that prevents the paladin from using RT?

What synergy do you see between an ability A, and an ability that prevents B?

Shield Warden compliments RS, as it synergizes with the new ethos of the Paladin: Defender. Shield Warden provides another tactical option. Sometimes you know RS isn't enough damage to kill the creature and your wounded ally needs something to reduce the damage instead. The fact that the Paladin can keep me from taking that last hit and going to 0, is another incentive for me to stand right next to him/her. So any abilities that incentivize allies to keep the Paladin in arm's reach, compliment and reinforce the vision of the class.

Contrast that with HT. Any ability that requires an action, undermines HT. Several Ranger abilities which key off of HT require an action, thus requiring you use HT.

Now, I'm not saying the Paladin is better or more fun than its 1e counterpart, but I am saying that RS isn't screwing over the class like Hunt Target. RS doesn't have the potential to make the the Paladin do less damage like HT. The Paladin isn't giving up damage to use RS.

[Draco18s]

N N 959 wrote:

RS doesn't "constrain" anyone. It's disingenuous of you to try to present it that way. RS provides an incentive for me to stand next to a Paladin and punish the creature for attacking me, or force it to go out of its way to attack me to avoid retribution.

Ah, but every time the rogue moves away from the paladin, it's the paladin's player that suffers. Not the rogue. The rogue took the conscious decision that he'd rather flank for a Sneak Attack than do nothing.

The paladin, on the other hand, lost access to RS and if the creature acts between the rogue and the paladin the paladin can't fix the problem.

[N N 959]

Draco18s wrote:

Ah, but every time the rogue moves away from the paladin, it's the paladin's player that suffers. Not the rogue. The rogue took the conscious decision that he'd rather flank for a Sneak Attack than do nothing.

The paladin, on the other hand, lost access to RS and if the creature acts between the rogue and the paladin the paladin can't fix the problem.

Uh...what?

Quote:

Trigger A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature.

You'll have to explain to me why the Rogue, who decides to flank, is now preventing you from using RS against a creature the two of you are flanking?

And you know what, I never noticed this before:

Quote:

If your attack hits, the target is enfeebled 1 for the remainder of its turn, or enfeebled 2 for the remainder of its turn if your Strike was a critical hit. The enfeebled condition ends immediately if the creature makes a Strike against you.

So if you hit with RS, then creature is automatically doing less damage. Over time, a -1 on a first attack is about a 15% reduction in damage, on top of the -1 damage.

It's unclear whether the creature automatically knows that it can attack the Paladin to end the condition, or, if the creature has to hit, or simply attempt an attack. Ends "immediately" suggests that if the attack is made against the Paladin, there is no penalty, but I'm not certain.

Either way, RS is WAAAAAY better than HT in both helping the Paladin do its job and as a straight-up benefit.

[Draco18s]

N N 959 wrote:

You'll have to explain to me why the Rogue, who decides to flank, is now preventing you from using RS against a creature the two of you are flanking?

Flank was a poor choice on my part.

I had meant it as a stand in for "be somewhere else."

[Grave Knight]

I don't understand why the Fighter is a better bowman than the Ranger.

Also, there should be an option that allows Rangers to be a half caster like the Paladin. Rangers should be to Druids that Paladins are to Clerics. (I also wish Rogues had a half-caster option to make them into Arcane Tricksters.)

[Gaterie]

Grave Knight wrote:

I don't understand why the Fighter is a better bowman than the Ranger.

Enforced role protection.

"Being good with weapons (including bows)" is the fighter's niche. Hence, PF2 assumes no one else can be good with bows.

[LordVanya]

If that is the case, then that is stupid.

[ChaiGuy]

I'm surprised that rangers aren't proficient with shields, then again if they where then perhaps that would overshadow their intended 2 weapon build, but then again shield spikes and shield boss are weapons so why not have shield proficiency?

[LordVanya]

Even if they did have shield proficiency, when would they ever be able to use it? Not enough action economy for a Ranger with a shield.