|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Ranger's mechanics are at odds with each other. Hunt Target wants them to stand still and use all their actions to Strike a target, focusing them down, but it doesn't benefit Crossbow Rangers much, and even TWF Rangers have Double Slice.
Crossbows have the Reload 1 trait, meaning that your turns will go Strike-Reload-Strike into Reload-Strike-Reload. You can only benefit from Hunt Target once every 2 rounds, and you don't benefit on the turn you first use Hunt Target. Rangers have Crossbow Ace and Running Reload to support a Crossbow fighting style, but their main class feature doesn't work well with a Crossbow at all.
Anecdotally, I've heard from several Rangers who use Double Slice that they don't want to waste an action to Hunt Target, because they would rather move up to their main target and use Double Slice, which already uses up all their actions in a turn. If they're next to the target, they would prefer to Double Slice then Strike (or do something else) than waste an action on Hunt Target. I know this isn't enough evidence to support how Hunt Target doesn't work well with TWF, but it's true that Double Slice doesn't interact with Hunt Target unless you can make a 3rd Strike that turn.
My suggestion is twofold: Add another level 1 Feature that takes advantage of Hunt Target, and change up Double Slice to work with this addition. I know the devs have considered changing Double Slice for Rangers, and this is my suggestion on how it could work.
1/ Lethal Hunter:
Lethal Hunter is a level 1 class ability unique to Rangers.
[[Free Action]] Lethal Hunter
Trigger: You complete the last action on your turn.
Requirement: You have made 1 or fewer Strikes this turn.
Make a Strike against a target you are hunting or Interact to Reload.
What does this ability do for the Ranger? It helps with action economy while not affecting the class' maximum damage potential. It ensures that you can almost always benefit from Hunt Target in a round, making the ability truly the Ranger's bread and butter.
The Crossbow Ranger can now start a combat with the following sequence:
Round 1: Hunt Target -> Strike -> Reload -> Strike with Lethal Hunter
Round 2: Reload -> Strike -> Reload -> Strike with Lethal Hunter
and so on.
Combined with Running Reload, you have a skirmisher who darts from cover to cover, popping out for brief moments to land a hit. This Ranger is also taking advantage of Hunt Target every round.
What about a Ranger who decides to use 2 Weapons? This brings us to the Ranger's Double Slice replacement.
2/ Two-Weapon Rend:
Two-Weapon Rend is a level 1 Ranger feat that replaces Double Slice.
[[2 Actions]] Two-Weapon Rend
Requirements: You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Make a Strike with one of your weapons, it gains the following enhancement and failure effects.
Enhancement: You deal extra damage equal to half the damage of your other weapon.
Failure: Your attack deals its minimum damage. (Treat this as though you had rolled a 1 on every damage die.)
Okay, that looks complicated at first glance, let's break down what the feat does.
Two-Weapon Rend is a single Strike with both an Enhancement and a Failure effect, similar to Combat Grab (Fighter feat 1, page 89). None of the effects are new, and both have precedence in the playtest rules.
The Enhancement adds extra damage, similar to Power Attack and other such feats. The extra damage is half that of your off-hand weapon, meaning it's less than if you had hit with 2 Strikes, but because you're only making 1 Strike, you get the same benefit as Double Slice when it comes to resistances.
The Failure effect is the same as Certain Strike, but you get access to it 9 levels earlier. To compensate for the early access, you need 2 actions to benefit from the same safety net that Fighters get at level 10.
But why does the feat work like that?
The main difference between Two-Weapon Rend and Double Slice is the fact that TWR is one Strike with bonuses. This lets the Ranger use Lethal Hunter the same turn it uses Two-Weapon Rend and no other attacks.
Another difference is the absence of the MAP increase clause that's in Double Slice and other 2-action attacks. I wanted to keep the damage between TWR and Double Slice similar, and that was one of the ways to make the math work out.
The Failure effect was added to keep TWR competitive as an option. Without it, TWR would do less expected damage than just attacking twice.
The main benefit of TWR over Double Slice is the free action you get that can be used to move or do something other than attacking. Even if the raw damage of TWR is lower than Double Slice, the action economy improvement makes it worth it.
A Ranger with Double Slice who has to move and attack can only use Double Slice that turn.
A Ranger with TWR and Lethal Hunter can move and still use TWR and make a Strike at the end of their turn.
The End Result:
Between Lethal Hunter and Two-Weapon Rend, I want to give Rangers the option to skirmish and to grant them a combat advantage that is not just pure numbers. They now benefit from a pseudo-Quick condition against targets they are hunting, and they can zip across the battlefield to find their chosen foe without losing out on damage. This should make them more effective combatants while mostly keeping their current mechanics.
I would appreciate thoughtful criticism and feedback. What could go wrong with this change? Are there any edge cases that can be abused?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like the theme of Lethal Hunter. It emphasizes the ranger as a martial character that focuses on a target. Due to the intensity of that focus, the ranger gains an extra action.
The ranger could use a more solid theme.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pramxnim wrote: The Ranger's mechanics are at odds with each other. Hunt Target wants them to stand still and use all their actions to Strike a target, focusing them down, but it doesn't benefit Crossbow Rangers much, and even TWF Rangers have Double Slice. You've only got half the picture correct:
Hunt Target is at odds with the entire action economy system.
The paradigm of rewarding a second and third strike is problematic for how this action economy is designed. Hunt Target needs to be scrapped
1) The theme of a Ranger should not be a "hunter"/single target killer i.e. "first and foremost a hunter" theme needs to be abandon. If the survey rumors that the Ranger is the least played class, then it stands to reason the concept is not generally appealing to people who like Rangers and people who haven't traditionally played them. Tracker, Guide, Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, are all far more appealing than being a hunter of things. A Ranger's combat approach should be fluid, flexible, and born from cunning, not obsession or fixation.
If Paizo is convinced this concept is attractive, then simply create a class called the Hunter and give it Hunt Target. But a Ranger should not be straddled with an ability that compels the player to act with tunnel vision and focus on one target to the exclusion of all others. That's the Slayer...not the Ranger.
2) Any solution which mandates a 2nd and 3rd attack to get a benefit undermines the class. 2e is predicated on an action economy where players are frequently having to give up an action to get some benefit. This means that Hunt Target inherently limits the class. Any future abilities, feats, whatever, that require an action, will diminish Hunt Target.
3) Hunt Target needs to convey a benefit that is consistent with actual hunting i.e. a benefit on the first strike. Maybe let Rangers roll the attack die twice on the first attack. Personally, I would rather Paizo abandon Hunt Target and replacing it with a Tracking based ability.
As such, I have to emphatically vote against your solutions because they preserve Hunt Target as is, an ability which conflicts with other aspects of the class and the game itself.
It makes more sense to fix the root of the problem--Hunt Target--rather than try and patch up everything around it.
I do like the idea that rangers "pick a target" and have more flexibility than for example paladins in what kind of creature they can target. But Hunt Target is indeed at odds with most class abilities. How about two tweaks:
1) Activated as a Free Action whenever you have no current Hunted Target. So combat begins, or your current target drops? Call dibs on a new one as a free action. Whenever there is combat, the ranger is always hunting enemies one by one.
2) It should provide a bonus to damage, and maybe to hit, instead of reducing MAP. MAP already doesn't matter that much; Double Slice lets you make two attacks without MAP and the third action is either going to be parrying or moving. Crossbows need reloading time. Meanwhile, because Double Slice is pushing you towards small agile weapons, you're probably a bit behind on damage die size compared to other martials, which hurts with magic weapons.
I mainly have to agree with NN959.
Although I think an attack ability like Hunt Target would help the ranger if it is a useful ability.
But the rangers focus should be more Survivalist, guide and tactician - useful against both, environment and monsters.
There are many abilities in PF1 that could be used for the ranger now. I would have liked something like the Inquis Judgements for the Ranger: Special tactics that you can switch on and that help you and your allies. Hot weather? Grant fire protection! Weapon resistant monster? Grant damage bonus!...
The PF2 ranger now has some abilities that go into the skillfull tactitian direction (Monster Hunter) but they seem weak and boring.
Also the proposed Lethal Hunter already sounds like a better and more interessting ability that would even work alone without HT.
The issue I have with your Lethal Hunter proposal is that it falls into the same trap that Hunt Target currently does.
It helps with some specific combat styles and does nothing for the others.
It's an improvement for Rangers who decide to go for a crossbow or maybe TWF but it does nothing for archers (regular short/longbows) or two-handed Rangers.
Both will probably attack more than once in a round.
Archers may not need to move to start firing on their target since their initiative is likely higher than the rest of the party and, for now, nothing stands between them and the target(s).
As such, they can attack thrice as soon as the encounter begins.
Two-handed Rangers will also probably move up to their target and attack twice. Yes, they might be using Sudden Charge or Power Attack from an archetype but they won't get the first until level 4 at the earliest and the second will require level 6.
In short, two-handed Rangers don't get to use Lethal Hunter at all if they don't go for specific feats that are not even class feats to begin with.
Moreover, even if archers and two-handed Rangers were to move and attack only once during their turn in order to get your Lethal Hunter benefit, what happens after the first round of combat is over?
You just lost the benefits of the current Hunt Target in exchange for nothing because the only Ranger who can now reliably make use of the replacement ability every round is one that uses a crossbow.
I'm not a big fan of Hunt Target at the moment and I sure hope it's on Mark Seifter's over-100-things-to-review list.
However, your own proposal, while it helps with a very specific combat style, does nothing to enhance others and thus doesn't look viable to me.
I don't think lethal hunter favores only crossbow that much.
Sure, if you attack three times anyway it doesn't help you. But a ranger has plenty of stuff to do.
Strike + Command AC + Recall Knowledge or Move works with any style. And now it doesn't punish AC rangers. Also depending on style you could raise a shield, feint or whatever.
You have to use the ability to do whatver you want on your round and still be garantueed a strike, yes. But I don't see that as a problem.
masda_gib wrote: I don't think lethal hunter favores only crossbow that much.
Sure, if you attack three times anyway it doesn't help you. But a ranger has plenty of stuff to do.
Strike + Command AC + Recall Knowledge or Move works with any style. And now it doesn't punish AC rangers. Also depending on style you could raise a shield, feint or whatever.
You have to use the ability to do whatver you want on your round and still be garantueed a strike, yes. But I don't see that as a problem.
I have very different experiences from the playtest.
If your character is fighting with a melee weapon and has an animal companion, most of their turns are going to be:
Command AC > Strike > Strike
The only time this is different is during the first round of combat, when you might use an action to move and another for Hunt Target (the way it is right now).
With the OP's Lethal Hunter, you would be able to Recall Knowledge or Move instead of triggering Hunt Target and then you'd get one extra Strike.
However, when the following round starts, you are now in reach of your target so you will command your AC to use their Work Together benefit and then you will strike...twice.
You don't get to use Lethal Hunter at all, unless the enemy is trying to flee and you have to move again to follow them.
YMMV but my experience has been that this doesn't happen very often and when it does, it's usually the last round of combat and the encounter is won already.
Hunt Target doesn't do much for now when a Ranger has to command their animal companion but at least it does something every round, i.d. slightly improve the accuracy of your second attack roll.
As I have mentioned already, you get to use Lethal Hunter more if you've taken an archetype for Power Attack and/or Sudden Charge but you shouldn't have to do so to be able to use your main class feature.
The current version of Hunt Target is bad but this new one, while it does solve some issues, brings up new ones as well.
I get what you are saying dnoisette. But the sequence
Command AC -> Strike -> Strike
would with Lethal Hunter be
Command AC -> Strike -> Anything else -> Strike via LH.
So you still strike twice. You don't lose anything. You basically gain a free action. I just don't see the issue.
Without an AC you have to sacrifice more since you won't get 3 strikes with LH, that's right.
And finding something to do with a free action shouldnt be impossible. Heck, you can spend an action to gain +2 cover bonus when standing beside a wall per the rules. And in a dungeon crawl there will always be a wall.
N N 959 wrote: Pramxnim wrote: The Ranger's mechanics are at odds with each other. Hunt Target wants them to stand still and use all their actions to Strike a target, focusing them down, but it doesn't benefit Crossbow Rangers much, and even TWF Rangers have Double Slice. You've only got half the picture correct:
Hunt Target is at odds with the entire action economy system.
The paradigm of rewarding a second and third strike is problematic for how this action economy is designed. Hunt Target needs to be scrapped Okay, this is important. One problem that I have read in these forum playtest reports is players not understanding the action economy. On Facebook one person declared that Power Attack looked overpowered because it did double damage. No, it is more like 50% more damage, and because it takes two actions, double damage would still be single damage per action.
We don't want abilities that tell the player to use up an action for a minor bonus that will be hard to use because you used up an action. They send an incorrect message.
N N 959 wrote: 1) The theme of a Ranger should not be a "hunter"/single target killer i.e. "first and foremost a hunter" theme needs to be abandon. If the survey rumors that the Ranger is the least played class, then it stands to reason the concept is not generally appealing to people who like Rangers and people who haven't traditionally played them. Tracker, Guide, Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, are all far more appealing than being a hunter of things. A Ranger's combat approach should be fluid, flexible, and born from cunning, not obsession or fixation.
...
Personally, I would rather Paizo abandon Hunt Target and replacing it with a Tracking based ability.
Ranger is one of my favorite classes. But I am not interested in Favored Enemy or its variants. I like playing a high-skill martial. Such a character has roles both in combat and out of combat. Tracking is a skill check, so it emphasizes that the ranger is skilled.
Ranger is the classically martial class that has Key Ability Dexterity rather than Key Ability Strength or the split personality of Key Ability Dexterity or Strength. And unlike the other Dexterity builds of monk or rogue, ranger has training in medium armor, so the Dexterity is not for AC. Paizo probably picked that Key Ability for archery, but I like to believe it is also for skills. It is not for two-weapon fighting, because PF2 Double Slice has no Dexterity requirement.
N N 959 wrote: As such, I have to emphatically vote against your solutions because they preserve Hunt Target as is, an ability which conflicts with other aspects of the class and the game itself.
It makes more sense to fix the root of the problem--Hunt Target--rather than try and patch up everything around it.
Lethal Hunter does return the lost action to the ranger, so it helps correct the action economy problem. I could see a designer building a class around investing an action to gain an action, thereby teaching the player about the action economy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
masda_gib wrote: I get what you are saying dnoisette. But the sequence
Command AC -> Strike -> Strike
would with Lethal Hunter be
Command AC -> Strike -> Anything else -> Strike via LH.
So you still strike twice. You don't lose anything. You basically gain a free action. I just don't see the issue.
Without an AC you have to sacrifice more since you won't get 3 strikes with LH, that's right.
And finding something to do with a free action shouldnt be impossible. Heck, you can spend an action to gain +2 cover bonus when standing beside a wall per the rules. And in a dungeon crawl there will always be a wall.
You're right that I should be able to find something to do with an extra action every turn. At least 70% of the time (from what I can remember of my experience with the Ranger in the playtest).
However, I still prefer the current iteration of Hunt Target which, instead of granting me an extra action I cannot use to make a strike, actually enhances that second strike per round.
For a crossbow build, an extra action each turn lets you reload and then shoot again, so it's invaluable.
For other builds, it's kinda meh, because it might come in handy at times and be useless the rest of the time.
That's why I said earlier it only really helps crossbow builds.
I tried melee Ranger only once and that was without an AC.
It happened frequently that I would be able to attack thrice in a round because the enemy had not moved from its previous position.
Since critical failure is not a thing with weapon Strikes (but apparently it's fine that it is with spells...well, I digress) I did not hesitate to attack 3 times in a row.
I'm naturally lucky with dice rolls and often get 17 to 20 with my third d20 roll in a round, to my players' dismay when I am their DM. :D
I would have been unable to use Lethal Hunter at all and having a class feature you can't use is not a great recipe for fun.
Besides, I don't believe Hunt Target should be changed to accomodate the Ranger's wonky action economy.
It's animal companions requiring an action to command that should be changed.
Or Hunt Target requiring an action to use that should be changed.
Hunt Target should be a free action, or, my preferred choice, a reaction you can use after you succeed at a weapon Strike against a specific foe.
This means you no longer have to sacrifice an action during your first round of combat to trigger Hunt Target and thus you don't lose any potential damage.
Same with having to switch target during a fight, it happens organically instead of requiring you to lose an action, yet again.
The Slayer's Studied Target class feature had something similar in 1st edition, where you could use that class feature as an immediate action after you dealt sneak attack damage.
In fact, since this seems like a good place to write it down, here's my own proposal for revisiting Hunt Target:
[[Reaction]] Hunt Target
Trigger: You made a weapon Strike against the target of this ability during this turn and it was a success or critical success.
You designate a single creature within 30 feet as your target and focus your attacks against that creature. While hunting that creature, you gain benefits for focusing your attacks. As long as all your attacks in a round are against the target you’re hunting, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to all weapon damage rolls against that target. This bonus increases by 1 at level 5 and every 4 levels thereafter. You also gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks when you Seek your target and a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your target.
You can have only one creature designated as the target of your hunt at a time. If you use Hunt Target against a creature when you already have a creature designated, the prior creature loses the designation and the new target gains the designation. In any case, this designation lasts until your next daily preparation.
Mathmuse wrote: I could see a designer building a class around investing an action to gain an action, thereby teaching the player about the action economy. How about the following as a replacement for Hunt Target that works with the action economy:
[[A]] Excitement of the Hunt
Requirements You can see or hear the target.
You designate a single target creature within 100 feet as the target for your hunt. On any turn where you target that hunted creature twice or more with an attack or non-attack action, you gain one additional action that turn. This counts as quick condition. To Track, Seek, and Recall Knowledge on the hunted creature are actions that target it, and you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to those checks.
You can have only one creature designated as the target of your hunt at a time. If you use Excitement of the Hunt against a creature when you already have a creature designated, the prior creature loses the designation and the new target gains the designation. In any case, this designation lasts until your next daily preparation (see page 332).
To keep the aim aspect of the original Hunt Target for a player who wants to play a ranger as a hunter, we add:
Hunter's Aim Feat 1
Ranger
As long as all your attacks in a round are against targets you’re hunting, the multiple attack penalty you take on the second attack is –4 (–3 with an agile weapon) instead of –5, and –8 (–6 with an agile weapon) instead of –10 on the third and any further attacks in the round. You also ignore the penalty for making ranged attacks
against the target you’re hunting within your second range increment.
This one works nicely with Excitement of the Hunt, because on his second turn of a hunt, the ranger can attack at +0,-4,-8,-8 rather than +0,-5,-10,-10 (or the +0, -4 -8 allowed by Hunt Target). And by carefully rephrasing it as "targets you're hunting," the ranger can switch to a second target as his or her third action and still benefit from the lower attack penalty on the fourth action.
I really don't like those "As long as all attacks this turn are against the hunted target".
If I strike the hunted target 2 times and then want to attack a different creature - what happens? Is that just forbidden? Do previous hits and damage get negated retroactively?
Just give any bonus only when attacking the hunted target.
masda_gib wrote: I really don't like those "As long as all attacks this turn are against the hunted target".
If I strike the hunted target 2 times and then want to attack a different creature - what happens? Is that just forbidden? Do previous hits and damage get negated retroactively?
Just give any bonus only when attacking the hunted target.
You are right about the ambiguity. It ought to be "As long as all previous and current attacks this turn ..." Future attacks should not affect the penalty, but Pathfinder 1st Edition does have a history of abilities that treat future actions as restrictive as past actions, such as the no other movement rule about a Five Foot Step preventing future movement. I don't know whether Pathfinder 2nd Edition is as bad, but since the Playtest Rulebook was written by many authors, I would bet at least one chapter is as bad.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
masda_gib wrote: I really don't like those "As long as all attacks this turn are against the hunted target". I don't like it either. This paradigm is a reinforcement of the Ranger as a "first and foremost a hunter", which is not appealing. That should clear from the surveys. The Ranger is not first and foremost a hunter. None of the fictionalized Rangers were "first and foremost" hunters. Paizo has tried to make the Ranger class do double duty by setting it up to be built as a Slayer. This screws over the Ranger class. Is the Paladin rebuildable as a Warpriest/Samurai/Cavalier? Is the Alchemist double as a the Investigator? Does the Bard support the Skald?
Paizo...stop trying to hide a Slayer in Ranger's clothing. Make a Ranger for people who love playing the Ranger. Not for people who don't want to play it. If people want to Hunt Target, then let them do it as a Slayer. If you want a class that is "first and foremost a hunter" then make the Hunter. Jebus.
Reducing Rangers down to this single-target mindset diminishes the class. It undermines the lore and robs the class of a sense that it was more than the sum of its parts. It makes the Ranger small-minded.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: 1) Activated as a Free Action whenever you have no current Hunted Target. So combat begins, or your current target drops? Call dibs on a new one as a free action. Whenever there is combat, the ranger is always hunting enemies one by one. This does not fix the problem. In my playtest, I frequently was able to apply Hunt Target prior to initiative. It didn't matter. A +1 on a second attack that I frequently did not get and a third attack that appeared to me only in a dream, means the class is essentially getting no benefit from its signature ability. Contrast that with Retributive Strike or Sneak Attack or Attack of Opportunity. I played along side a Paladin during my playtest and in the second session Ret. Str. added 20% of the Paladin's total damage, and that was with him forgetting to use it about 1/3 of the time.
I also disagree with the single target focus. It runs counter to the tactician mindset. It is far more befitting a Rage mindset. One of the things I love about an archery Ranger is the target flexibility. Sure, in low level battles, combat is straight forward. But as you get to the higher levels, the ability to switch targets and exploit weaknesses is exactly what a tactician does. Hunt Target is contrary to that approach. It penalizes you for using it and it constrains you once you do.
I don't have a perfect replacement for Hunt Target, at the moment. But I would build feats and abilities that conveyed a sense of cunning. I don't mind the Ranger getting better as the fight goes on. I do like the concept of the Ranger recognizing the target and its weaknesses, but that should not be implemented based on 2nd and 3rd attacks on the same target. I haven't been able to coalesce these into a coherent ability as of yet.
I really like the OPs ideas, they seem well balanced and reasoned. I do see that they benefit some styles more than others but I think anyone can get some use out of it (especially when you consider that Demoralize is a potential use of your loose actions, it doesn't have the Attack trait and it's an excellent debuff if you land it. Thematic for a two handed fighter). And I think it solves a lot of the potential issue with Hunt Target.
Though I can see the argument that one action is too much for hunt. I think free action is too easy though, I like the idea of a reaction with the trigger of when you roll initiative or your current target drops. This does a few things. First I like the flavor because it's like your mental attention is drawn for a moment when taking on a target or moving from a fallen foe to a new one, it keeps you from reacting to other stimuli you might react to reflexively. Plus Rangers don't have a lot of reactions they're likely to use except for maybe sword and board. Even then it's not so bad.
In addition this would mandate a new class feature, Switch Target. Fairly self explanatory. But this does take an action because I imagine it's more an effort to de-focus from your current prey than it is to shift from no foe or a fallen foe.
As a note to the Two Weapon Rend suggested by the OP, I'd recommend giving it the Open trait as I feel like allowing you to Strike at full accuracy and then use TWR on your second attack could potentially be exploited or hanky.
But yeah, all in all this is one of my favorite suggestions I've seen on this forum!
N N 959 wrote:
Paizo...stop trying to hide a Slayer in Ranger's clothing. Make a Ranger for people who love playing the Ranger. Not for people who don't want to play it. If people want to Hunt Target, then let them do it as a Slayer. If you want a class that is "first and foremost a hunter" then make the Hunter. Jebus.
Reducing Rangers down to this single-target mindset diminishes the class. It undermines the lore and robs the class of a sense that it was more than the sum of its parts. It makes the Ranger small-minded.
I think that that ship has already sailed :o In my mind, the ranger was about being a kind of jack-of-all-trades. You have some spells, some skills, some combat feats, some animal companion. You could specialize in any of the facets of the class but you still have the others to fall back on.
Spellcasting seems to be an all-or-nothing type of thing. I could see the ranger get spellpoints, but it won't be as flexible as getting the whole ranger spell list. Animal companions take up 5 or 6 feats now, so its also all or nothing. The "good at combat" niche has been given to the fighter so the ranger almost by definition needs to be worse at it, but because he does not have an identity beyond that its hard to balance it out.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. There’s some interesting discussion going on about the Ranger and action economy here. There also seems to be a slight misunderstanding regarding Lethal Hunter, so I’ll address it first.
@dnoisette: Lethal Hunter is not meant to replace Hunt Target, but rather it is an addition meant to work with Hunt Target. I’ve seen players report that Hunt Target doesn’t work well in practice because they would rather do something else than try to use its benefits. Lethal Hunter is a way for players to get the benefit of Hunt Target (a lower MAP) while still getting to do fun things.
I understand your concern that Lethal Hunter does not benefit you if you already get to make 3 Strikes in a turn. However, while those situations may happen (like a Shortbow Ranger who has planted himself in place and let loose 3 arrows in a turn), there are plenty of situations where Lethal Hunter is useful, for all kinds of Rangers.
For Rangers with an Animal Companion, one of your actions is usually to command the animal, leaving you with only 2 actions left. You can make 2 Strikes with them, but because of Lethal Hunter, you basically have an extra action at no cost that can be used to do anything other than Strike. Maybe you could use Favored Aim for your first Strike, maybe you could move into position, perhaps you could even attempt a combat maneuver like Shoving or Grappling.
Speaking of combat maneuvers, because they have the Attack trait but are not Strikes, they work well with Lethal Hunter. You could insert a maneuver like Shove, Trip, Grapple or even Assist somewhere on your turn and still get to Strike up to twice and move or command your animal companion.
Here are some example turns for a Ranger with Hunt Target and Lethal Hunter:
Command -> Move -> Strike -> Strike
Favored Aim -> Move -> Strike
Favored Aim -> Assist -> Strike
Strike -> Shove -> Step -> Strike
Double Slice -> Twin Parry -> Strike
Lethal Hunter only doesn’t grant a benefit when you can spend all your actions in a turn to Strike 3 times. However, the Ranger in particular has many ways to spend his actions, and the 3rd Strike, even with Hunt Target, doesn’t add so much to his damage that he couldn’t sacrifice it to do other things.
Any Ranger with an Animal Companion benefits greatly from Lethal Hunter, since he’ll be Commanding his companion most of the time.
Any Ranger who has Favored Aim will get more chances to use it now that he is guaranteed a second Strike on his turn. He could use Favored Aim, Stride, Hide, Sneak or Take Cover and still get a 2nd Strike that turn.
TWF Rangers can use Double Slice and Twin Parry and still not lose out on damage that turn.
A high level Bow Ranger can use Impossible Volley and get the pure benefit of another Strike he would not normally.
Phew, that’s a lot of benefits from 1 ability. Hopefully I’ve addressed some concerns re: Lethal Hunter being of use to only a small subset of Rangers.
Edge93 wrote: I really like the OPs ideas, they seem well balanced and reasoned. I do see that they benefit some styles more than others but I think anyone can get some use out of it (especially when you consider that Demoralize is a potential use of your loose actions, it doesn't have the Attack trait and it's an excellent debuff if you land it. Thematic for a two handed fighter). And I think it solves a lot of the potential issue with Hunt Target.
Though I can see the argument that one action is too much for hunt. I think free action is too easy though, I like the idea of a reaction with the trigger of when you roll initiative or your current target drops. This does a few things. First I like the flavor because it's like your mental attention is drawn for a moment when taking on a target or moving from a fallen foe to a new one, it keeps you from reacting to other stimuli you might react to reflexively. Plus Rangers don't have a lot of reactions they're likely to use except for maybe sword and board. Even then it's not so bad.
In addition this would mandate a new class feature, Switch Target. Fairly self explanatory. But this does take an action because I imagine it's more an effort to de-focus from your current prey than it is to shift from no foe or a fallen foe.
As a note to the Two Weapon Rend suggested by the OP, I'd recommend giving it the Open trait as I feel like allowing you to Strike at full accuracy and then use TWR on your second attack could potentially be exploited or hanky.
But yeah, all in all this is one of my favorite suggestions I've seen on this forum!
Thanks for the feedback! I didn’t propose any changes to Hunt Target because I wanted to work around it rather than change it, but I love the idea of using a Reaction for it with the proper trigger, like the ones you mentioned. Not only does it feel right for the Ranger to reflexively focus on a priority target, it uses a resource the class wasn’t using much anyway and it saves on action economy.
I didn’t give TWR the Open trait because those are currently reserved for Fighter feats and Monk stances. It would be weird to introduce it to the Ranger with only 1 feat using it. I feel like the case of someone Striking then using TWR is not going to happen very often. Not only is it less effective to lower the accuracy of your more damaging attack (I’ve done the math for this case with Double Slice, it’s always more beneficial to use Double Slice first rather than last, and TWR is the same way), you get a free Strike at the end of the turn anyway, giving you no incentive to Strike first.
Knight Magenta wrote: I think that that ship has already sailed :o I'm thinking it has not. The Ranger has been a failure in the playtest. If it truly is the least played class, then Paizo needs to recognize that isn't because of one single thing and that simply tweaking Hunt Target is not the answer.
Quote: In my mind, the ranger was about being a kind of jack-of-all-trades. You have some spells, some skills, some combat feats, some animal companion. You could specialize in any of the facets of the class but you still have the others to fall back on. Yes, only you could not "specialize" in spells and really not anything.. At best you could neglect some facet of the class in order to focus on some other aspect, but the Ranger was never a paragon of anything specific, ime.
Quote: Spellcasting seems to be an all-or-nothing type of thing. I could see the ranger get spellpoints, but it won't be as flexible as getting the whole ranger spell list. No one has their own spell lists anymore. However, I think the Ranger could easily get spells off the Primal Spells list. The key is how its done. People frequently eschew spells on the forum, but it's because spells were poorly implemented in P1. I got a TON of utility out of spells and wands. A ton. Without that axis, the class feels flat and triggers responses that the class should just be a Fighter.
Quote: Animal companions take up 5 or 6 feats now, so its also all or nothing. The "good at combat" niche has been given to the fighter so the ranger almost by definition needs to be worse at it, but because he does not have an identity beyond that its hard to balance it out. Yes. The class is hard to figure out/pin down. I've had several abortive attempts at a post to address the issues comprehensively and it's extremely hard to talk about the class in a cohesive, concise manner.
The best I've come up with is to make Tracking a focal point. Make Tracking the calling card of the Ranger. But that means some critical changes to Tracking as a general ability. But doing so gives the Ranger something unique. It's an ignored design space that is thematically appropriate for the Ranger.
For me, the Ranger represented the clever/intuitive fighter. Something not fulfilled by the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, or Rogue (who I see as more a deceptive approach). By taking away spells, you've dumbed down the Ranger. Why? What did they give the Ranger that made up for spells? Nothing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Knight Magenta wrote: I think that that ship has already sailed :o I'm thinking it has not. The Ranger has been a failure in the playtest. If it truly is the least played class, then Paizo needs to recognize that isn't because of one single thing and that simply tweaking Hunt Target is not the answer.
Ranger was the least played class in the playtest? I somehow missed that information.
I don't know if that makes me sad or hopeful that it will shed light on the need for a Ranger design overhaul. :S
Pramxnim wrote:
@dnoisette: Lethal Hunter is not meant to replace Hunt Target, but rather it is an addition meant to work with Hunt Target. I’ve seen players report that Hunt Target doesn’t work well in practice because they would rather do something else than try to use its benefits. Lethal Hunter is a way for players to get the benefit of Hunt Target (a lower MAP) while still getting to do fun things.
My bad, I did not get that you were suggesting having this ability in addition to Hunt Target.
Honestly though, I still don't feel very good about it.
Not because I think your idea is bad but because I think it's more of a band-aid that doesn't solve the actual problem: Hunt Target currently sucks.
I would prefer that they fix Hunt Target by changing it radically or just remove it in favour of a new class feature rather than applying band aids to it.
I mean, that's the sort of thing one does when the core rulebook has shipped already and there's no way to rework the whole class.
Since we are currently playtesting a non-finished product, now is a great time to fix what isn't working instead of patching it with something else. :)
N N 959 wrote: This paradigm is a reinforcement of the Ranger as a "first and foremost a hunter", which is not appealing. That should clear from the surveys. The Ranger is not first and foremost a hunter. None of the fictionalized Rangers were "first and foremost" hunters. Paizo has tried to make the Ranger class do double duty by setting it up to be built as a Slayer. This screws over the Ranger class. Is the Paladin rebuildable as a Warpriest/Samurai/Cavalier? Is the Alchemist double as a the Investigator? Does the Bard support the Skald?
Paizo...stop trying to hide a Slayer in Ranger's clothing. Make a Ranger for people who love playing the Ranger. Not for people who don't want to play it. If people want to Hunt Target, then let them do it as a Slayer. If you want a class that is "first and foremost a hunter" then make the Hunter. Jebus.
Reducing Rangers down to this single-target mindset diminishes the class. It undermines the lore and robs the class of a sense that it was more than the sum of its parts. It makes the Ranger small-minded.
How did the single-target obsession become the Pathfinder theme of a hunter, let alone a ranger? My relatives who hunt deer wait in a deer blind for a deer to wander by. They don't obsess over one particular deer, though they will track down one they shoot. Duck hunters shoot at a flock of ducks and send their hunting dog to retrieve whichever duck they down. Animals that hunt don't focus on a particular target either. Some, like the deer hunters, wait in ambush for a sudden attack on the first prey to appear. Others charge at a herd and hope to separate one weak or slow individual from the protection of the group, but the prey chooses itself. Some predators will track injured prey, but that is because injured prey are an easy kill. They don't make multiattacks against injured prey.
I played a ranger Abu Gorgoni (used as an example in What is the Goal of This Game, comment #38), who was a hunter. He stated with Favored Enemy animals, but when the Advanced Player's Guide was published, I switched him over to the Guide archetype for ranger. Guide loses Favored Enemy and gains Ranger's Favor, which at 4th level let Abu apply bonuses against two individuals per day. I did not view this twice-per-day limitation as Abu hunting a target. It was purely a mechanical limitation to balance the loss of the species-based limitation.
An 11th-level ranger in PF1 gains once-per-day Quarry ability, to track and attack a particular creature, like the Hunt Target ability. Is this the source of Hunt Target? Or as N N 959 suggested, is the PF2 ranger really a Slayer? Either way, Hunt Target is not how a hunter acts.
In two full sessions with a ranger at the table, she has used Double Strike every chance she can get and Hunt Target not even once. As others here have noted, it's a failure as a class feature because it's too costly. I have no particular objections to it conceptually, but mechanically it just doesn't work.
My suggestion would simply be to change it to a Free Action with the Trigger: Your turn begins. That way it doesn't block off the things you actually want to do each round.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
How about something along the lines of improved readied actions for Rangers?
Right now readying an action costs two actions and immediately ends your turn and applies MAP.
What if Hunt Target let you ready an action for 1 action against your chosen target, and didn't apply MAP? Rangers would become one of the most tactically flexible classes in the game, being able to reliably act outside of their turn. Apply a restriction like "can do this three times before having to reapply Hunt Target" if it's too powerful.
It fits because hunters in real life are essentially ALL ABOUT readied actions.
Anyway, that's just a thought.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mathmuse wrote: My relatives who hunt deer wait in a deer blind for a deer to wander by. They don't obsess over one particular deer, though they will track down one they shoot. Duck hunters shoot at a flock of ducks and send their hunting dog to retrieve whichever duck they down. Animals that hunt don't focus on a particular target either. Some, like the deer hunters, wait in ambush for a sudden attack on the first prey to appear. Others charge at a herd and hope to separate one weak or slow individual from the protection of the group, but the prey chooses itself. Some predators will track injured prey, but that is because injured prey are an easy kill. They don't make multiattacks against injured prey. Prior to the playtest, I made these same/similar observations in the Ranger blog. I was confronted with a host of posters trying to defend Hunt Target.
Quote: How did the single-target obsession become the Pathfinder theme of a hunter, let alone a ranger? ***An 11th-level ranger in PF1 gains once-per-day Quarry ability, to track and attack a particular creature, like the Hunt Target ability. Is this the source of Hunt Target? Or as N N 959 suggested, is the PF2 ranger really a Slayer? Either way, Hunt Target is not how a hunter acts.. The evolution of the Ranger into what Paizo has presented us with is probably a convergence of many things. In theory, I can see why Paizo went this route, or rather, I can certainly see this idea being teased out in meetings. But the fact that Paizo went through with it makes me feel like the people making the call weren't really a fan of AD&D/PF1 Rangers.
Paizo openly stated that Hunt Target was a modified version of the Slayer's ability. Paizo also stated that they were trying to solve a customization problem and that the solution to this problem was the same solution to the archetype problem. In other words, at least for the Ranger, Paizo tried to strip the class down to a skeleton that could obviously service a Slayer or Ranger concept. The theory is that by stripping the class of many of its thematic abilities, this lets a player "opt-out" of a Ranger and build something closer to a Slayer. The problem is that you're juxtaposing abilities that should not be either/or. A Ranger shouldn't have to give up Wild Empathy to have a Full Grown Companion. The class shouldn't be trading Hazard Finder for Favored Target benefits.
As I have discussed in this thread and others, the Ranger class is hard to quantify definitively. As others have suggested, it is a complicated class that, on the surface, lacks an obvious cohesive and singular focus concept in contrast to the Barbarian or Monk or Paladin. Given that, it's easy to argue that the concept of a skilled single-target hunter is an obvious one in which to pigeon-hole a Ranger and give it some focus. But I think Paizo is failing to see the forest through the trees. The Ranger is meant to be something greater than its parts. The class vision/concept is a fighter that not only posses remarkable skills, but something beyond the mundane. Paizo missed this last part, or rather ignored it. Most players ignore it as well, but I think it constitutes a fundamental aspect of the class that separates it and distinguishes it.
A lot of how people perceive things is psychological. It's possible that Paizo could repackage the Hunt Target as part of a Hunter concept and people might be more receptive. It's also possible that someone entirely new to Pathfinder/D&D might like the concept as they have no expectations attached to the label of "Ranger." But Paizo is nixing its PF1 product line. So that means they expect/need PF1 players to transition. If I'm correct, then Paizo needs to give me a reason to switch over and want to play this class, and they haven't.
The Ranger is an opportunity for Paizo do something amazing. Paizo can fix the core problems that address this class (situational abilities that rarely apply) and reconfigure the class and aspects of the game so that the class is truly useful and has purpose in the context of its theme.
Shisumo wrote: My suggestion would simply be to change it to a Free Action with the Trigger: Your turn begins. That way it doesn't block off the things you actually want to do each round. That won't fix it. If you don't believe me, go ahead and house rule it and see what difference it makes. Keep track of your damage with that +1 applied and without that +1 applied. Ask yourself if the class is suddenly transformed.
N N 959 wrote: The Ranger is an opportunity for Paizo do something amazing. Paizo can fix the core problems that address this class (situational abilities that rarely apply) and reconfigure the class and aspects of the game so that the class is truly useful and has purpose in the context of its theme. I feel this is more or less what happened with Rogues.
After I finished reading the class entry for the first time, I remember thinking: "Well, they did address almost 100% of the issues the Rogue had in PF 1.0."
This serves to demonstrate the they are indeed able to improve an existing class. In the case of the Ranger, it's much more of a failure than a success and I guess only time will tell if they intend to fix it or not, since devs do not even want us to know if they're discussing a specific topic at the moment (for fear that we might be disappointed if nothing happens in the end - and rightly so!).
N N 959 wrote: Shisumo wrote: My suggestion would simply be to change it to a Free Action with the Trigger: Your turn begins. That way it doesn't block off the things you actually want to do each round. That won't fix it. If you don't believe me, go ahead and house rule it and see what difference it makes. Keep track of your damage with that +1 applied and without that +1 applied. Ask yourself if the class is suddenly transformed. Who said anything about transformed? I just the ability to get used. "Free" appears to be about the right cost for it.
The other option for balancing it is to make it more like rage, which is an action I feel is worth taking, since it increases damage across the board and also unlocks rage-based super powers. A series of Hunt Target-based feats to improve the functionality of the ranger against their Hunted Target might also make actually spending that action worthwhile.
Shisumo wrote: N N 959 wrote: Shisumo wrote: My suggestion would simply be to change it to a Free Action with the Trigger: Your turn begins. That way it doesn't block off the things you actually want to do each round. That won't fix it. If you don't believe me, go ahead and house rule it and see what difference it makes. Keep track of your damage with that +1 applied and without that +1 applied. Ask yourself if the class is suddenly transformed. Who said anything about transformed? I just the ability to get used. "Free" appears to be about the right cost for it.
The other option for balancing it is to make it more like rage, which is an action I feel is worth taking, since it increases damage across the board and also unlocks rage-based super powers. A series of Hunt Target-based feats to improve the functionality of the ranger against their Hunted Target might also make actually spending that action worthwhile. Even free HT is bad. At most, it gives you +2 on your third attack. The fighter has +1 to +2 (compared to other classes) all the time on all attacks against every opponent.
You guys are so silly calling the PF1 Ranger a "complicated class that lacks cohesiveness". They're just Druid/Fighter hybrids with some "nature warrior" thematics (tracking/survival/hunting particular prey) thrown on. Just like how Paladins are Cleric/Fighters with some "holy warrior" thematics (smiting/holy weapon/divine horse) thrown on.
I do think that if they're trying to make them a chassis for a Slayer type class then that's a pretty poor decision. They should go back to their "nature warrior" concept and the whole Slayer schtick of focusing one target should become an archetype like Cavalier.
I'd prefer seeing them getting Spell Points to use on some ability along the line of "buff a single weapon or natural attack" that represents a combo of gravity bow, lead blades, and magic fang. As that was really the signature Ranger thing IMO. Then there can be additional feats to add more things you can do with it (and more points) - Bonus to monster knowledge check, some sort of energy resistance or AC buff, some sort of tracking/nature thing.
Shisumo wrote: Who said anything about transformed? I just the ability to get used. "Free" appears to be about the right cost for it. I'll repeat my challenge:
Every combat, pretend that you have Hunt Target on that target. When/if you take a 2nd and possibly 3rd attack, see how often that +1/+2 changes the outcome/increases your damage. Now compare that to the other signature abilities for the other martial classes.
Quote: The other option for balancing it is to make it more like rage, which is an action I feel is worth taking, since it increases damage across the board and also unlocks rage-based super powers. Whether Rage in PF2 is good or not, I think this is exactly the wrong way to go. The Barbarian/Rage playstyle, imo, is the opposite of the Ranger. In fact, I created a Barbarian in PF1 for a change of pace from my Ranger i.e. not tactically minded. The Barbarian, for me, provides/encourages a primal response to combat: See bad guy, kill bad guy. As a Ranger, I am constantly looking for an edge, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, looking for an advantage.
Quote: A series of Hunt Target-based feats to improve the functionality of the ranger against their Hunted Target might also make actually spending that action worthwhile. The Ranger already has that, or has that in theory. But you're overlooking the problem with that approach: your class is balanced for those benefits and thus inadequate without them. So in order for a player to be really motivated to use Hunt Target, the benefit has to be good enough that Paizo has to nerf the base combat without it.
Finally, I really don't enjoy playing a "tactical" fighter who can only focus on one target for more than half his/her career as a Ranger.
dnoisette wrote: I feel this is more or less what happened with Rogues.
After I finished reading the class entry for the first time, I remember thinking: "Well, they did address almost 100% of the issues the Rogue had in PF 1.0."
This serves to demonstrate the they are indeed able to improve an existing class. In the case of the Ranger, it's much more of a failure than a success and I guess only time will tell if they intend to fix it or not, since devs do not even want us to know if they're discussing a specific topic at the moment (for fear that we might be disappointed if nothing happens in the end - and rightly so!).
Exactly. Paizo improved the Rogue. Paizo made a Rogue that appealed to people who played Rogues. They didn't reinvent it and give it some mechanic stolen from another class. They have reportedly done the same thing with the Cleric.
Paizo needs to do the same thing with the Ranger. Favored Enemy is not the essence of a Ranger. It's one ability and nothing else in the Ranger toolkit is even dependent on it. Not only is Hunt Target pulled from some other class, Paizo insisted on shoving it down the class' throat as a reason de etre for the class. 40% of the Ranger's class feats are dependent on Hunt Target. *facepalm* Sure, it'd be neat if some of class feats leveraged the signature ability, but not when it's done like this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pramxnim wrote: I know the devs have considered changing Double Slice for Rangers Did they find out that rangers have one viable build? They are going to Nerf it into the ground, aren't they.
Actually, the most damaging Ranger build currently is one that doesn’t care about any of its feats. If you just grab a 2 Handed Weapon and go to town, Hunt Target makes you output more damage than any other Ranger build. TWF is viable, but so is simply wielding a 2 Handed Weapon.
Pramxnim wrote: If you just grab a 2 Handed Weapon and go to town, Hunt Target makes you output more damage than any other Ranger build. Not sure what you mean? Hunt Target is on all Ranger builds. Hunt Target is adding 5% more expected damage on a 2nd attack and 10% more on a 3rd. But at -4 and -8, your expected damage is lower.
If, and I repeat, if, you can hit on a 10 or lower for the 2nd or 3rd attack, then its adding 10% and 20% based on crits (with 2x damage). In most cases, if not nearly all, you won't be hitting on a 10 with a 2nd attack without significant external buffing. But that's 10% of your expected damage for that attack. So if the expected damage is 3.5 points (because you're using a shortbow), then that +1 is increasing your expected damage by .35 points.
But, if the Ranger's accuracy is 65% on a 1st attack vs level appropriate creatures, then a -4 on a second attack means you're accuracy is down to 45%, in which case you cannot crit outside of a 20 and thus are gettin no additional crit benefit. You need to be able to hit 55% of the time for a +1 to improve crit damage.
If you don't get a 2nd attack because you're moving and doing anything that requires an action, then Hunt Target does nada.
I'd love to to see some Monte Carlo simulations on a THF Ranger using Hunt Target and not using Hunt Target through an entire scenario.
I'm saying that Hunt Target benefits a 2 handed weapon build more because the average damage on hit of a 2 handed weapon is more.
Hunt Target at low levels give you a +1/+2 to hit with your 2nd/3rd Strikes in a turn, and at high levels, this becomes a +2/+4.
It's pretty improbable that Hunt Target affects the crit rate of your 2nd and 3rd Strikes (if using a non-agile weapon, you'd need to hit on a 5 with your 1st Strike for that to happen), so really, Hunt Target is adding 5%/10% of your weapon's average damage at low levels, and 10%/20% of the same at high levels.
Since a 2-handed weapon does more average weapon damage than other weapons, it benefits more from Hunt Target.
An agile weapon does up to 1d6+4 damage at 1st level, and up to 6d6+7 damage at 20th level, for average damage values of 7.5 and 28, respectively.
Hunt Target is adding 0.375 and 0.75 damage to the 2nd and 3rd Strikes with an agile weapon at 1st level. It is adding 2.8 and 5.6 damage to the 2nd and 3rd Strikes with an agile weapon at 20th level.
Compared to that, a d12 weapon does 1d12+4 damage at 1st level (10.5 average damage) and 6d12+7 damage at 20th level (46 average damage).
Hunt Target is adding 0.525 and 1.05 damage to the 2nd and 3rd Strikes with a d12 weapon at 1st level. It is adding 4.6 and 9.8 damage to the 2nd and 3rd Strikes with a d12 weapon at 20th level.
So not only does a d12 weapon deal more damage on the first Strike each turn, it also benefits more from Hunt Target. Even if we count the +1/+2 accuracy that agile weapons normally have over non-agile ones, the d12 weapon still benefits more at higher levels. That's what I mean when I say that a Ranger using a 2-handed weapon outputs the most damage compared to other Ranger builds.
But more seriously, a rangers biggest strength was it's flexibility. A switch hitter was decent at melee damage, decent at ranged damage, decent with a pet, pretty good at skills, and even passable with spells.
I think they need several versions of hunters mark, each favoring a common play style. The current version would be acceptable if it didn't take an action, but I don't see many players wasting an action to maybe get a +1 to a second and third attack. So far, most would just opt for an extra attack.
And I really wish Paizo would drop their ranger crossbow fetish. I know they are trying to break the mold with a wacky new iconic weapon for rangers, but the classic longbow got there for a reason; it's been great IRL until reapeating rifles were invented.
Pramxnim wrote: That's what I mean when I say that a Ranger using a 2-handed weapon outputs the most damage compared to other Ranger builds. Sure. Just like Bless and Inspire Courage are more valuable if you have a bigger damage die. You can even say +1 weapons are better if they are two-handed. Hmm...maybe Paizo should license the Weapons Speed Factor table from WotC...heh.
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells
|
