Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.
Really? You feel like ranger is more like a slayer than a ranger? I just don't see it at all.
Taking multiclass in the playtest felt like taking Combat Expertise used to, this thing you did because it was the tax to get to the good stuff, were as it should be a choice, with impact and weight, it didn’t feel like it meant anything more than pay this feat tax and lock yourself into this for multiple feats.
I guess this multiclass is great for character concepts that involve classes and awful for character concepts that want feats... I mean the first multiclass feat is normally one of the best ones. Getting several proefs, 1 free skill, 1 class ability for free is normally great (Depends a fighter that multiclass paladin gets almost nothing but sorc that multi paladin gets everything).
actually would semi agree, it does feel like a slayer, Mark Targt and Hunt Target feel really similar in concept, for instance, it’s not a perfect fit, but it is closer to Slayer than to Ranger.Really? You feel like ranger is more like a slayer than a ranger? I just don't see it at all.Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.
Yeah the marks feel a bit similar... But i always felt like slayer were more roguey than rangery, i mean i could see a rogue with ranger dedication being much closer to a slayer.
When you said "hunter" in one of your ealier posts, I was under the impression you were confusing hunter and Slayer.Yeah, I think Paizo openly stated that they took Hunt Target from the Slayer. As Quid accurately points out, a the Hunter is a bigger caster than the Ranger. I do not want the Ranger to turn into the PF1 Hunter. I don't like the P1 Hunter because it is too focused on spells and not martial enough, imo.
No when i said hunter i meant hunter... Not a PF1 hunter, but like a hunter hunter. A guy in the wild with a dog that shoot geese or boars and bring the dinner home or a guy that lives off the land and does it for sport.
Weirdly enough when you said hunter i just assumed you were talking about that... I mean, hunter is a guy who has 2/3ths casting why would you talk about that that when one of your points was that spells were important for a ranger lol.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.
It really doesn't.
Slayer is actually a really good Class, which the PF2 Ranger is not, and even aside from that the PF2 Ranger is still deeply associated with wilderness activities and lacks much of any Rogue-based stuff, while removing such a focus on wilderness stuff and adding the Rogue stuff are a big part of the Slayer.
The only real similarities are both not having spells and being able to target specific foes rather than having Favored Enemies. The latter strikes me as flatly superior, from a game design perspective, and as Mark Seifter noted the former is being adjusted somewhat.
.
.
.
I'll reiterate my general opinion from other threads on what I think the Ranger should wind up looking like:
I think Ranger should get more and better built-in Skill options like extra Skill Ranks and Skill Feats (though less than a Rogue), particularly focused on wilderness skills (I think we can all agree the Ranger needs those...5 bonus Skill Feats in Medicine, Nature, Survival, and Stealth, for example would work out interestingly), and Spell-Point spells as an available option. A version of Hunt Target allowing more viable fighting styles, and better Class Feats (a lot of the Ranger Class Feats should really be Skill Feats...which they'd have better access to since they get more) and I think Ranger would be just fine, and work equally well to build most people's visions of the Class.
. So no support for spell casting? Spell powers are..well horrible tbh.Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.It really doesn't.
Slayer is actually a really good Class, which the PF2 Ranger is not, and even aside from that the PF2 Ranger is still deeply associated with wilderness activities and lacks much of any Rogue-based stuff, while removing such a focus on wilderness stuff and adding the Rogue stuff are a big part of the Slayer.
The only real similarities are both not having spells and being able to target specific foes rather than having Favored Enemies. The latter strikes me as flatly superior, from a game design perspective, and as Mark Seifter noted the former is being adjusted somewhat.
.
.
.
I'll reiterate my general opinion from other threads on what I think the Ranger should wind up looking like:I think Ranger should get more and better built-in Skill options like extra Skill Ranks and Skill Feats (though less than a Rogue), particularly focused on wilderness skills (I think we can all agree the Ranger needs those...5 bonus Skill Feats in Medicine, Nature, Survival, and Stealth, for example would work out interestingly), and Spell-Point spells as an available option. A version of Hunt Target allowing more viable fighting styles, and better Class Feats (a lot of the Ranger Class Feats should really be Skill Feats...which they'd have better access to since they get more) and I think Ranger would be just fine, and work equally well to build most people's visions of the Class.
There have been quite a few posts talking about how lay on hands is OP and monk first level powers are insane to me. They aren't horrible, even if i feel like there need to be some more choices, 1 per feat feels s!+!ty... And not getting to at least master or expert in the casting of them feels awful at least for me...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So no support for spell casting? Spell powers are..well horrible tbh.
They really aren't. Some individual Powers are, but others are just ridiculously good (Lay On Hands leaps to mind), and it's not hard to make good ones.
Add in that Ranger spells should be low-key buffs, healing effects, or broad but relatively subtle utility effects, all of which are well suited to being Spell Point effects. Especially since they don't have too many of them, generally.
Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.
Ah, now I understand.
I’d consider that good. Slayer is what I pointed players to as a better Ranger than Ranger. For anybody who cared about the animal companion more, I recommended Hunter so they weren’t waiting three levels. Ditto for casting.
Ranger’s unique features (Favored X) felt like bugs to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are locked into spell powers, you can choose spells based on the situation, spell powers could be game breaking, amd that flaw as a replacement for casting would still make me dislike them as an alternative to casting, as a replacement for spell likes and supernatural abilities, they are ok.
That's a legitimate problem if you think Rangers thematically need access to a large spell list. I really don't think they do.
From a mechanical perspective, it's fine as long as they're actually good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I could look at the various options for feats and come up with fighters, monks, barbarians, and rogues I wanted to play. But the ranger didn't have much that appealed to me and "adding spells" would not have fixed that.What if I told you that the class could spontaneously cast any spell on its list? Would that make it more interesting?
What if the Ranger could make (class appropriate) extracts outdoors like an alchemist?
Maybe that still does nothing for you, but I'll bet a spell concept could be added that would make significant change in how the class was perceived. \
Did Paizo give us a chance to explore it? No, nevertheless, they pop survey questions on spells and drew conclusions from it. Spells we never got to use or even try out.
Can't I just do that by multiclassing sorcerer or alchemist?
I mean, what makes me not interested in the ranger is that there doesn't seem to be a core unifying thesis for the class which intersects with characters I like to play. Adding more things the class dabbles on wouldn't really make a difference to me.
Fixing a martial class by giving it spells is a vastly inferior solution than "fixing a martial class by giving it something interesting and unique."
Like the fighter is the best at weapons, the monk is the best at mobility and action economy, the rogue is the best at skills, the barbarian is the best at raw power, the Paladin is the best at defense... what should the ranger do best? What does the ranger even do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not without chaining youself to the horribl3 multiclass system, you do that you maybas well make a fighter/druid and bin ranger as a class.
I mean this seriously, what is the difference between being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list as ranger feats and being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list by multiclassing?
Like the monk has to spend one class feat per spell, and earlier in the playtest ki strike was a straight up tax. So to get a power I actually wanted I needed to be at least 4th level and spend 2 feats. In order to get sorcerer spells up to 3rd level I need to... be at least 4th level and spend 2 feats.
A problem with classes is that they do not give enough interesting stuff with features not related to class feats. A problem with classes is not "multiclassing is a poor use of class feats."
It feels like ranger has been all over the place in terms of mechanics in most rpgs, and I think sticking with traditional abilities like favored enemy and terrain tend to cause more problems, as suddenly the player has to play a guessing game regarding which enemies they're primarily fighting otherwise they end up having a useless feature for good parts of the game. Same with favored terrain to a lesser extent (since terrain is easier to guess). That was one of the main reasons why the phb ranger in 5e was seen as the weakest class despite being upped to being a half-caster. I think hunt target is a healthier alternative that leads to less having to predict the campaign or meta-knowledge on the player's part, though I would have preferred if hunt-target was a free action or activated on attack as opposed to spending an action. That, and make the animal companion less cumbersome in terms of action economy and feats.
Favored enemy and terrain could still work if rangers were able to "prepare" or swap those like how prepared casters can swap their spells, but making your favored enemies and terrains permanent choices only hurts it.
And on spells, I remember Mark Seifter saying that "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" was the main winner in the poll, so I'm sure ranger's will have a powers option.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells provided versatility and adaptability. They could solve non-combat problems and boost combat prowess.
Sure, but if they have problem solving tools and combat prowess good enough that they don't need spells to boost them (which is something I very much hope to see for all martial Classes), then the spells are kinda superfluous.
If your Spell Powers can provide me with access to spells like Glide, Ant Haul, Resist Energy, Heightened Awareness, Keen Senses, Longstrider, and host of others, in addition to combat boosts like Gravity Bow and Lead Blades, then yeah...problem solved. But if at 4th level, when I can pretty much buy most of those spells on scrolls, I am only getting to increase my attack by +1 three times a day....then we aren't there.
Getting combat bonuses via spells is something martial characters almost certainly should very rarely get inherently. The whole point of the way PF2 is designed in terms of tight math is that every bonus matters. A lot. Boosting damage significantly should generally be something inherent in a martial class rather than one of a host of spells they can use, or it's better served by being a full caster (something Ranger is ill suited to). If Ranger is good enough in combat sans spells (which it should be), then having a wide array of such spells is overkill.
Now, in terms of utility, I agree that Rangers could use some breadth, but there are several solutions. Firstly, Skills are a lot better in PF2, so giving additional Skills and Skill Feats would make Rangers need a lot fewer spells to achieve anything. Secondly, Spell Point powers can easily be fairly broad and upgrade over time (an Endure Elements effect upgrading to provide a Resist Energy type effect as well, for example, seems a very Ranger-appropriate Power). Thirdly, there are Rituals, which are a bit underutilized in the playtest, but seem designed to allow for a lot of out of combat utility spells to be made into them.
Spell Powers might be a better instrument for combat boosts, but I don't see it as a good vehicle for versatility. And I don't see it opening up access to scrolls or wands.
You're one Skill Feat away from Scrolls and Wands for Primal Spells (which sounds like what Rangers should have). My above suggestion for specific Skill Feat bonuses simply including that one seems quite a reasonable fix here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it's worth mentioning that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids have much less versatility via spells than they did in PF1 and this was intentional in order to make spells not obsolete skills (like they often did in PF1- who needs "climb" when "fly" is such a low cost to so many).
So adding spells to the Ranger in PF2 would not grant the same level of versatility that spells added in PF1.
I mean, one of the premises of PF1 was basically "Give equal weight to skills, acumen with weapons and armor, and spellcasting". So a lot of stuff we used to do with spells we're going to do now with proficiency and feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the fighter is the best at weapons, the monk is the best at mobility and action economy, the rogue is the best at skills, the barbarian is the best at raw power, the Paladin is the best at defense... what should the ranger do best? What does the ranger even do?
What does the ranger even do is a great question. Thematically, when people say nature stuff (hunting, tracking, etc) they are basically just saying "skills stuff" mechanically. "Kill a specific target" is possibly the point of hunt target, but it really only helps one or two kind of builds and unless it gets opened up to where it can be declared before combat, is going to make it not that useful because enemies in PF1, and what I saw in the playtest just didn't last long enough to make "hunting them down" something that a character could focus on. Maybe that could be fixed by letting the ranger get the ability to asign hunt target from seeing its tracks or learning of its existance, and then the nature focus stuff could start to come into play, but again that is pretty situational.
There is a real lack of design space between best at combat and competent at combat, from level 1 to 20 in PF2, for something like next best combatant after fighter to exist. Personally I like the choice of making sure the fighter stands out as the best at combat, but it puts both the barbarian and the ranger into an awkward space because they are specifically not full BAB classes when put up next to the Fighter. Does the game really need a space between rogue (as skill master) and fighter (as combat master) that is half way between them, when that space is pretty narrow in PF2?
I love the ranger. I want the ranger to exist as a cool and interesting class, but hunt target is not going to get it there. It needs a lot more access to skill proficiencies and skill feats for that to be a real focus, but is it going to end up being different enough from the rogue not to just be always less than both the rogue and the fighter because it can’t be either? Animal companion seems like the only current viable answer right now and personally, that is not nearly enough for me personally.
The kind of magic that NN is asking for really doesn’t exist in PF2. Powers are just not as versatile as spells and spells only come in all the way, none, or through multi classing. Maybe the ranger could be a casting class built around its own class feats that grant access to primal spells like an archetype, but why bother if that is already possible with multi-class druid.
The one area I see possible still is the incorporation of rituals into a basic path the ranger can go that would really cover the flexibility and utility that NN is asking for, but we really haven’t seen rituals yet that could do the kinds of things like ant haul and long strider type of limited buffing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually do think that 'better in combat than the Rogue, better at Skills than the Fighter' is a legitimate area of design space. It's a slightly tricky one, since Rogues are no slouches in a fight, but it's doable, and thematically on-point for the Ranger.
And Barbarians have their own upsides that Fighter can't readily duplicate via Rage (which makes their damage higher than Fighters even if their to-hit is lower) and Totems, and are generally significantly more durable (in every way but AC), so I think Barbarian is actually doing quite a good job of making its niche work. Now Ranger just needs something similar.
Would giving the Ranger more skill increases and feats than other classes, but still less than the rogue, be a way to fix things?
Like most classes get 10 skill feats and 9 skill increases, the rogue gets 20 skill feats and 19 skill increases. Could we give the ranger, say, 15 skill feats and 14 skill increases?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part I think the hybrid classes are the ones which are least necessary to bring back. So if the Ranger consumes and somewhat becomes the Slayer, that's fine. Studied target both makes more sense and is easier to use than favored enemy, so that's just an upgrade.
It's not like the Warpriest, Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Skald, and Brawler need to come back either.
|
|
Would giving the Ranger more skill increases and feats than other classes, but still less than the rogue, be a way to fix things?
Like most classes get 10 skill feats and 9 skill increases, the rogue gets 20 skill feats and 19 skill increases. Could we give the ranger, say, 15 skill feats and 14 skill increases?
That's my basic suggestion, yeah. Possibly, depending on how on-theme you want to enforce them into being, with some limitations on where the 'extra' Skill Ranks and Feats can go (I threw out the list of Medicine, Nature, Stealth, and Survival at some point in another thread).
A lot of the Ranger's more skill-related Class Feats would then become Skill Feats, suitable for being taken with their bonus Skill Feats, and they'd get some additional combat options plus the Spell Point stuff. A change to some of the Hunt Target options to make all of them actually good, and a few other curlicues and this seems workable to me.
And I, too, am fine with most of the ACG Classes being devoured in the changeover to PF2 (the only ones that seem unique in any way are Arcanist, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Swashbuckler, and for Arcanist and Swashbuckler that's mechanical rather than thematic), with the rest better done in PF2 via multiclassing and maybe Paizo adding a few new Multiclass Feats to enable them (something to allow Rage Casting lets you do a Bloodrager as a Barbarian with a Sorcerer Multiclass really easily, and I'm fine with Slayer as a Rogue with Ranger Multiclass or vice versa even as-is).
So with archetypes now including skill feats as well as class feats, I wonder if one thing we couldn't do with this space is give some skill feats a class tag meaning that via the appropriate multiclass dedication or "just being that class" you would become eligible to take that feat.
I figure that opens up a potentially nifty design space for classes like the ranger. A bunch of classes could benefit from this, since something like "Wall Run" makes more sense to me as a skill feat requiring Master Acrobatics and "Monk" than a class feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So with archetypes now including skill feats as well as class feats, I wonder if one thing we couldn't do with this space is give some skill feats a class tag meaning that via the appropriate multiclass dedication or "just being that class" you would become eligible to take that feat.
I figure that opens up a potentially nifty design space for classes like the ranger. A bunch of classes could benefit from this, since something like "Wall Run" makes more sense to me as a skill feat requiring Master Acrobatics and "Monk" than a class feat.
I quite like this idea, and would very much like to see exactly this. Giving at least a few to every Class would actually be very cool and create some interesting design space (a Fighter Skill Feat to analyze weapons or fighting styles in some unique way, or a Barbarian Skill Feat to become truly physically superhuman while raging, or a Sorcerer Skill Feat to gain some sort of Intimidate bonus while casting flashy spells).
All of the hybrids are more interesting and more thematic than the core classes except for Paladin and maybr ranger, and no in no way what so ever does multiclassing, especially this ‘but not really’ mess of a system replace them, but then it becomes increasingly clear that pf2 has zero to offer me, so....
PF2 Multiclassing is very much 'build your own Hybrid Class', and seems to me to work quite well mechanically. I believe it's also pretty popular, so I suspect it's sticking around.
And I strongly disagree that the hybrid Classes mostly brought much new thematic stuff to the table. They often brought absolutely awesome mechanical stuff (Slayer was great in just about every way, for example), but most just took existing fictional archetypes (there were plenty of swashbucklers out there before the Swashbuckler Class came along, mostly as Fighters, Rogues, or a combination of the above) and made a Class around them. That's not a bad thing, but they were not fundamentally unique and thematically different.
Really, the only three that had a thematic niche truly separate from their parent Class were Bloodrager, Investigator, and Shaman. And Bloodrager's stuff has mostly been assimilated by how Totems work in PF2.
I think the point is that thematically we can replicate most of the hybrid classes simply with smashing two classes together via multiclass archetypes.
Like since barbarian totems already warp your body, all we really need to do to let Barb/Sorcs be bloodragers is "some way to cast while raging." A Fighter/Monk is a passable brawler. A Cleric/Fighter fills the same thematic niche as a warpriest.
Since we're changing the mechanics with a new edition "this class has a thematic niche that cannot be filled with existing options" is more important than "this class had a mechanical niche in PF1."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually do think that 'better in combat than the Rogue, better at Skills than the Fighter' is a legitimate area of design space. It's a slightly tricky one, since Rogues are no slouches in a fight, but it's doable, and thematically on-point for the Ranger.
And Barbarians have their own upsides that Fighter can't readily duplicate via Rage (which makes their damage higher than Fighters even if their to-hit is lower) and Totems, and are generally significantly more durable (in every way but AC), so I think Barbarian is actually doing quite a good job of making its niche work. Now Ranger just needs something similar.
But if Rogue is master of skills, and Fighter is master of combat, wouldn't the argument that hybrid classes are no longer necessary apply equally to the ranger?
This sort of circles around to the issue of whether it is enough for classes to just have their own interesting and unique lore or else classes need to be defined clearly by occupying a mechanically unique niche.
Right now the PF2 ranger does not have a unique necessary mechanical niche and that is why it looks so lack luster. Character concepts that float between two extreme mechanical niches are probably better covered by archetypes and multi-classing than creating new classes which stretch the game towards redundant bloat. If the game doesn't need half caster/half combat classes, then it is hard to justify half skill/half combat classes too. The PF2 ranger does not have a unique and necessary space that is not being filled by another class better.
Which is rough, because the class is iconic as Iconic can be, and not including it probably feels like a disservice to the genre, but it really feels like the PF2 ranger is the PF1 core rogue waiting to happen all over again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if Rogue is master of skills, and Fighter is master of combat, wouldn't the argument that hybrid classes are no longer necessary apply equally to the ranger?
If that were all it did, yes. A Class that is only part way between two others is indeed superfluous in PF2 in many ways. But that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that Ranger do things other Classes don't, and that you should in no way be able to create a Ranger by making a Fighter who Multiclasses into Rogue.
But at the same time, the Skills situation is a bit binary at the moment, with everyone except Rogue getting a set number and Rogue double that. Having Classes somewhere in between those two numbers isn't trying to be a Fighter/Rogue any more than having a Master level Proficiency in weapons is (since Rogues have Expert and Fighters Legendary, Master is right in the middle).
If there were no Classes with Master level Proficiency in weapons, only Expert or Legendary, there would be a definite design space for such a Class without it being 'part Rogue and part Fighter' in any meaningful sense.
This sort of circles around to the issue of whether it is enough for classes to just have their own interesting and unique lore or else classes need to be defined clearly by occupying a mechanically unique niche.
Both. There's plenty of design space for both. The mechanical side is basically necessary, and the thematic one should generally be doable...and thus should be done.
Right now the PF2 ranger does not have a unique necessary mechanical niche and that is why it looks so lack luster. Character concepts that float between two extreme mechanical niches are probably better covered by archetypes and multi-classing than creating new classes which stretch the game towards redundant bloat. If the game doesn't need half caster/half combat classes, then it is hard to justify half skill/half combat classes too. The PF2 ranger does not have a unique and necessary space that is not being filled by another class better.
Uh...the game has 'half caster and half combat classes', it just does them in the form of Spell Points, because the new reliance on spell level rather than caster level (while useful in several other ways) makes not getting real close to the highest level spells for your Class Level flatly not work. Also because you can go even further into spells with Multiclassing if you want without damaging theme.
Neither of those are really true of Skills. Having 14 Skill ups and 15 Skill Feats is eminently doable (unlike 6-level casting ala PF1), and there's not really a thematically sound way to do it that actually works mechanically (Multiclassing Rogue gets you Skills, and even Skill Feats if you invest heavily, but trading Class Feats for Skill Feats is almost always a trap option).
Which is rough, because the class is iconic as Iconic can be, and not including it probably feels like a disservice to the genre, but it really feels like the PF2 ranger is the PF1 core rogue waiting to happen all over again.
Which is why it should be fixed and improved rather than removed. There's plenty of opportunity to do that.
Like the fighter is the best at weapons, the monk is the best at mobility and action economy, the rogue is the best at skills, the barbarian is the best at raw power, the Paladin is the best at defense... what should the ranger do best? What does the ranger even do?
I think the answer for the Playtest is/was: Multiple attacks, at least initially. I don't think that's enough as a concept for a class or satisfying as a design. The ranger lacks indeed a solid identity in the playtest in my mind, but I also think that going back to "nature stuff" as a default isn't the solution. Too often the ranger felt like a weird choice for adventures, as the ranger's flavor is at odds with the narrative, which is especially clear during urban campaigns. And while the same is true for the druid, I found it at least easier to incorporate that conflict of interest into campaigns, as druids are more idialistic about nature and nature is more integrated into their design.
This leaves the question what other specialties should the ranger have beside multi-attacking effectively and I would like to see them pushed into the direction of a scout of some sorts. Give the ranger more skills and abilities to gather information about the environment and their target, to set up ambushes and traps, which also would require making traps more interesting and effective. So a more militaristic and tactical, but less opportunistic rogue of sorts would be fine for me.
But at the same time, the Skills situation is a bit binary at the moment, with everyone except Rogue getting a set number and Rogue double that. Having Classes somewhere in between those two numbers isn't trying to be a Fighter/Rogue any more than having a Master level Proficiency in weapons is (since Rogues have Expert and Fighters Legendary, Master is right in the middle).
I think the end proficiencies are getting heavily reworked in PF2 from the playtest. Jason said the wizard would end up with expert proficiency in the weapons they started with as trained. I would be pretty shocked if the rogue is not getting master in at least one or two groups of weapons, or else they are basically going to be sitting on the floor of weapon proficiencies.
And if multi-classing into rogue gives a character a path towards more skill proficiencies and skill feats (which it was headed towards in the play test, and probably will happen more completely with expansion material), then clearly characters could trade combat potential for more skills and skill feats.
But one of the complaints that people seem to have about rangers right now is that many of their class feats just feel like things that should be skill feats already.
The rouge has unique design space still because it has two un replaceable class abilities: sneak attack and dex to damage, both of which have run into some issues, but they do give rogues a default combat style that no other class can touch. The ranger does not have a monopoly on either archery or two-weapon fighting. Maybe they are the current master of the crossbow, but that never seemed like the combat style that ranger fans were begging for supremacy.
The only somewhat thematic thing a ranger can do that a fighter/rogue cannot is have a fairly powerful animal companion. The more I think about it, the more it seems like martial with an animal companion, right now, is the only "kind of" unique space that the ranger occupies. Especially because snares and traps are so resource intensive a direction to go in, underpowered, and not hard to see as something that would easily fit within the wheelhouse of rogues or alchemists.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really disagree with you about the current state of the Ranger. I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be that way. Yes, it needs some unique combat elements on par with (or superior to) Sneak Attack and the Rogue's choice of focus, as well as more Skills (if you go the Skill route)...but that's totally doable.
And I think they should do that.
Like the fighter is the best at weapons, the monk is the best at mobility and action economy, the rogue is the best at skills, the barbarian is the best at raw power, the Paladin is the best at defense... what should the ranger do best? What does the ranger even do?I think the answer for the Playtest is/was: Multiple attacks, at least initially. I don't think that's enough as a concept for a class or satisfying as a design. The ranger lacks indeed a solid identity in the playtest in my mind, but I also think that going back to "nature stuff" as a default isn't the solution. Too often the ranger felt like a weird choice for adventures, as the ranger's flavor is at odds with the narrative, which is especially clear during urban campaigns. And while the same is true for the druid, I found it at least easier to incorporate that conflict of interest into campaigns, as druids are more idialistic about nature and nature is more integrated into their design.
This leaves the question what other specialties should the ranger have beside multi-attacking effectively and I would like to see them pushed into the direction of a scout of some sorts. Give the ranger more skills and abilities to gather information about the environment and their target, to set up ambushes and traps, which also would require making traps more interesting and effective. So a more militaristic and tactical, but less opportunistic rogue of sorts would be fine for me.
Rangers as the absolute best at perception is interesting, but it is a narrow line to walk with the rogue being the iconic master of traps. That is part of why the snares/traps ranger felt like a bad direction for the ranger to jump into for the playtest, because it was pushing it much closer to something that "feels" like it is the rogue's domain. Someone much earlier in the thread pointed out that maybe the "Leadership" role could be a unique ranger niche, with a focus on improving the rest of the party's ability to accomplish tasks, which could be one interesting direction to go and it would play well with a ranger either going the animal companion route, or focusing on the team as its tactical leader.
My issue with the ranger's combat ability focusing on making lots of attacks is mostly a point of execution-the crossbow was the wrong ranged weapon to focus on and they need many more mobility+attack feats.
Chance, meet Gorbacz. He's our regular "bag of sarcasm" on the forums.
Oh, thanks for the tip.