| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting from the *other* thread:
3a) Way back in the blog days, I proposed a cantrip that allowed you to trigger a creature's weakness. Like if a creature had Weakness (silver) 5, the spell would force the creature to take 5 damage as if its weakness had been tapped (at higher levels it could also add damage on top of that). What if rangers had that cantrip, and it depended on you knowing what that creature's weakness was? That would dovetail nicely with rangers as all-around monster lore experts, and reward players that invested in that aspect of their character.
This kind of spell, which I decided should be called "Wrack", might also work as a FOcus spell if it were beefed up a little. Maybe have a low baseline damage that you can vary depending on the monster's weakness?
Or if that doesn't work, a focus spell that lets you convert your arrows or bullets into a special material, so that you always have silver bullets or cold iron bolts at hand.
I do agree Hunt Target might work better as a focus spell. Doens't even need to be tied to a list; it can be the first example of a purely martial "spell" that isn't actually magic but follows all other rules as if it were a spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like a Focus "Spell" to apply the critical effect of yor weapon on a normal hit. No extra damage, just the effect.
So: Spend Focus, fire your bow, if you hit the target gets pinned to the tree.
That would let you use your weapon tactically and would be a nice power for any martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever Spell Powers Rangers get, I hope they include ones that mesh nicely with the Arcane Archer concept. It bothered me to no end that Ranger in PF1 didn't mesh well with AA, despite the "enhancing arrows with magic" theme is well within the nature guy wheelhouse.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread, I posted the following list:
-Animal Communication/Control. This seems valid as a single spell as long as it's more Diplomacy-type control than mind control.
-Endure Elements, or something much like it, and a group version as they level.
-Healing. Probably herbal and non-combat, but effective. Something for condition removal might also be good.
-Overland Travel Enhancer. Probably a combination of Longstrider and Tireless Pursuit thematically, again with the ability to expand it to a whole group as you level.
-Mobility Enhancer. In PF1, Rangers can get the ability to run on air or walk on water, and eventually Freedom of Movement. Something similar seems like a good call.
-Perception Enhancer. Probably not numerically in PF2, but Rangers have a lot of this stuff that jacks up Perception, something in that vein seems warranted.
I think all those remain good options, probably along with at least one offensive option of some sort.
Upon reflection, I'd definitely have the Endure Elements upgrade to not only effect multiple people but also provide Resistance to elemental damage. Several of these that seem non-combat would also preferably have combat benefits (I'd imagine the Overland Travel Enhancer would also give +5 or +10 to movement, for example, and obviously with very long duration).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the ideas in here are bonzer.
The title pretty much says it all. Recent-ish comments by Mark Seifter have indicated that the Ranger will be getting a Paladin/Monk style treatment in the CRB or at least shortly thereafter publication-wise, in that they will have the option to obtain Powers/Focus Spells as the PF2 version of the low-tier casting they possessed in PF1, much like the Paladin already has. I for one am down for this, I liked how the Paladin and Monk handled it and I feel like the Ranger will look good too.
So I'm curious what kind of ideas anyone has for what Ranger Focus Spells might actually look like. I don't really have too many ideas myself that aren't just "nature stuffs" or copying something like the Druid Order base Powers.
One thought I did have though was something to toy with Hunt Target. The general concept being a 1 or 2 action cast spell that causes you to mark multiple creatures as your Hunted Target at once. I think the concept behind this power is a decent one, it gives something that might satisfy those who dislike the single-target nature of Hunt Target or the action cost to switch targets, and while potentially very useful it isn't anything you can't do without if you're down with focusing on one target at a time. And a spell point seems an appropriate cost for the multi-target IMO. It also keeps Double Target from being invalidated since DT can be done all day without resource cost.
The Power could expand in usability as it heightens, too. Like at first it just marks all creatures within sight, lasts on each one until they die or until you mark someone else I guess. Then at some point it gains a boon where you can use it when you find the tracks of multiple creatures and it gives you the benefits against all of them, even allowing you to hunt another target normally in the meanwhile (Like say if you get in a fight between finding the tracks and finding the quarry). And then eventually maybe it just takes on a lengthy duration like 1 hour or something, or even 10 minutes, and during the...
As I mentioned in the other thread, I am starting to feel like Hunt Target should kind of just do this by default. Have Hunting any particular Target take an action, but don't limit how many targets you can Hunt at a time. The reason for this is because if you're tracking a group of similar creatures then I'm not sure how you know which one was your target when you catch up to them. It also creates an interesting middleground between Hunt Target and the old Favored Enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever Spell Powers Rangers get, I hope they include ones that mesh nicely with the Arcane Archer concept. It bothered me to no end that Ranger in PF1 didn't mesh well with AA, despite the "enhancing arrows with magic" theme is well within the nature guy wheelhouse.
Personally, I want Arcane Archer to be rolled into the Magus whenever it rears its head. I don't mind them on Rangers, but a proper Arcane Archer might require more spellcasting than the rangers are going to get. Multiclassing would solve that of course, but I don't think feats that require multiclassing are a good idea for core. The ACG of APG, sure, but not core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like some variant of Favored Terrain. Perhaps something where once the Ranger has had some time to become familiar with a region and become acclimated then Favored Terrain acts like a Regional Lore skill that might be complimentary to survival, scouting, acting as a guide, and steering parties away from natural hazards.
I wouldn't mind seeing Favored Enemy being a low-level Ranger Feat. We have lots of conditional feats that are rarely useful, so Favored Enemy fits in there quite nicely. At perhaps +1 to-hit and perhaps +1 save versus the enemy's fantastic attacks, it could fall in line in terms of power.
I could see a Ranger improving a party's overland speed and improving the party's ability to pass through otherwise obstructed or very limited terrain.
Some kind of ability related to finding/establishing shelter in a wilderness environment would be good. This could translate into a variety of nice things for the Ranger's party at various levels. Leave summoning cabins in the woods for the wizard/summoner. Let the Ranger's ability relate to finding natural shelters, or perhaps constructing temporary shelters.
I can see environmental buffs that allow a party to operate in hostile climates, including underground. Perhaps some energy resistance buffs.
When it comes to spells, they don't all have to have a combat role. We're plowing through the Playtest's adventure for 14th levelers right now and there's a lot of frustration at the table. The adventure precludes spell casting which ruined any chance of using investigative spells that are normally ignored in favor of combat spells.
Related to spells, I'd look to the D&D 3.5 Spell Companion. Ranger spells really came into their own with that book, and took a step back with Pathfinder 1.
Self-Buffing spells often fit with many Ranger class character conceptions. Adding special attributes to arrows, like fire, would fit. At higher levels you can then jump the shark like the other classes and do all sorts of goofy sword-n-sorcery shticks.
Mobility spells fit. Crowd controls spells, within limits also make sense.
The current Ranger "traps" feature makes much more sense to me coming from spells so long as they're deploying them in unrealistic time periods, like one round.
I would say the getting powers that have to do with berries, snares or buffs seem like a cool flavor to pick for the ranger. I hope they get some feats that give them powers like surveys suggest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second Chance's suggestion of giving the class focus spells that allow them to rapidly deploy traps on the battlefield (though I would perhaps add that you should be able to summon them costlessly in terms of GP). Maybe you could also have powers that render traps invisible or give the ranger access to some form of magical traps.
Maybe you could also give them some hunter-style buffs that they could use to improve themselves (or maybe a PC ally) with the same action economy.
I feel like out of combat utility stuff needs to somehow be packaged together with combat stuff or at least have some kind of in combat utility like increased speed or the ability to ignore difficult terrain. Otherwise, I think that kind of stuff would somehow be better suited as a ranger-specific skill feat than rather than something that compete's with the ranger's scarce combat feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the old pf1 stand bys of “Gravity Bow” and “Heavy Blades” should be focus spells. They’re not really appropriate for the primal spell list as a whole (should the ranger wind up with proper spell casting somehow), but have come to be strongly associated with pathfinder rangers. Focus spells would be a good way to get them back in without Druids going mad with power.
Also, Spike Growth might be a good baseline for that trap spell. Or Tanglefoot except castable at a longer range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some sort of healing spell with status mitigation. Maybe it can wind back a poison and/or disease track back a step while also healing hitpoints? It can be a strong out-of-combat healing option, as opposed to Paladin's built-in combat-focused healing spell. (Reminiscent of Aragorn treating Frodo's wound.)
A really good tracking spell- enough to want to multiclass to or from Ranger if you're building Dresden. Increase distance or time increments for penalties ten-fold, or negate circumstance penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some sort of healing spell with status mitigation. Maybe it can wind back a poison and/or disease track back a step while also healing hitpoints? It can be a strong out-of-combat healing option, as opposed to Paladin's built-in combat-focused healing spell. (Reminiscent of Aragorn treating Frodo's wound.)
While I wouldn’t *mind* this, I think I’d prefer that as a skill feat anyone could pick up, and that highly skilled rangers could pick up easily.
Your tracking spell suggestion sounds awesome though.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the old pf1 stand bys of “Gravity Bow” and “Heavy Blades” should be focus spells.
I disagree whole-heartedly, those two spells alone account for so much abuse I'm surprised they haven't been banned from PFS. They were great spells yes, but they were TOO GOOD.
It seems that PF2 is moving away from granting a ton of changes based on Size Category of a PC, NPC, or gear and I'm glad for it. As it stood these two spells alone were Staples because they were easily one of the best Buff Spells in the game just behind Haste and Blood Money.
Something to the effect of granting bonus damage to a given weapon equal to your Prof Modifier in the Weapon however might be pretty balanced but changing the Die rolled is a BAD BAD idea for ANY mechanic for PF2, the math will get destroyed in .00124s as soon as paizo lets this happen just as it has before.
I think this is a good start if Paizo is going to go powers. As I've mentioned before, if Paizo wants to make us "buy" them, then juxtapose them to other things that are not essential or critical for the Ranger in game play. Make it really be an "extra" benefit, not my tree in the form of firewood..
I actually agree with you here. Although "non-critical" needs to not mean "weak" - in other words, the other class feats competing with focus spells need to be just as good as focus spells, so that focus spells aren't the obvious "always" choice.
It seems like overall the mark Paizo is trying to hit is "class feats refine your class, none of them are required for your class to function". They haven't hit that, yet, but they seem to be aiming for it and I fully support that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the old pf1 stand bys of “Gravity Bow” and “Heavy Blades” should be focus spells.I disagree whole-heartedly, those two spells alone account for so much abuse I'm surprised they haven't been banned from PFS. They were great spells yes, but they were TOO GOOD.
If we keep the PF2 rule where you can never increase the size of a weapon's damage dice twice (Page 91, in a sidebar) then I think we will have prevented any abuse from lead blades and gravity bow. So it would be fine as a focus spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Increasing damage die is already in PF2. There’s a level 4 fighter feat that allows it to be done at will under certain circumstances, as well as Titan Mauler. I’m not advocating simply copying the spells as is into PF2, but some (less powerful) form of the spells seem appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like an interesting idea for a Focus power is an "Enhance Senses" ability that gives you, say, blind-sense (hearing). Or something that lets you "see" the enemy you're tracking (Like Thunderbird in The Gifted, if he touches someone's footprint, he can see what they look like, up to and including clothing) that really plays up the "I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you." thing that Rangers are meant to have. Another idea is to have one based on the other two Paths, like you could have a "Frenzy Attack" for the Flurry Path that gives you two swings per action for the turn. And Precision, you have a 3 action attack that just LAYS INTO the poor sod that you're trying to kill, and maybe double/triple procs weakness, or CAUSES weaknesses. That's a fun idea, inflicting weakness so that they die easier, that's a thing that would make sense in world (maybe hawk off a chunk of hide and leave a big soft spot for you and your buddies to wail on). Just the mutterings of a 20-something on break at work :P
Increasing damage die is already in PF2. There’s a level 4 fighter feat that allows it to be done at will under certain circumstances, as well as Titan Mauler. I’m not advocating simply copying the spells as is into PF2, but some (less powerful) form of the spells seem appropriate.
Wait Titan mauler increases damage die? I thought it just doubled rage damage... And yeah gravity bow was part of a bigger problem where increasing your damage grows in a weird way that seems non-linear.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I'm gonna fundamentally disagree, N N, and I think it just comes down to a preference thing. "Here is the basic shell of a class, now define how it applies to your character" is exactly what I want from PF2e. It's basically what PF1e provided with the archetype system. I want to use classes to build characters, not fit characters to classes.
I want spells to be both optional and meaningful, and for that to happen the other options you can replace them with have to be just as meaningful.
Wait Titan mauler increases damage die? I thought it just doubled rage damage... And yeah gravity bow was part of a bigger problem where increasing your damage grows in a weird way that seems non-linear.
Actually you’re right, it doesn’t. It lets USE a weapon for a large character (with some disadvantages), not merely damage as if it’s bigger.
But as PossibleCabbage points out, the hard limit on how much you can increase the damage dice might help keep things from getting out of control, while allowing interesting flavor.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Large weapons no longer increase damage dice.
A spell could do so, but it's probably a bad call. A better idea, if you want a damage-boost spell, is either a flat bonus or an extra damage die (ie: a bonus d8 on a longsword). Either would have similar effects without getting weird if used on, say, a d12 weapon.
Large weapons no longer increase damage dice.
A spell could do so, but it's probably a bad call.
Why is that?
Well problem with it isn't one spell increasing damage dice... I don't think anyone sees a problem with that, problem is if they open the floodgates and start pouring damage increases...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Large weapons no longer increase damage dice.
A spell could do so, but it's probably a bad call.
Why is that?
It's a pure math/mechanics thing. It interacts oddly with d12 weapons, and is only an average of +1 damage per die, which makes it very much not worth it (as a spell) at low levels, and only debatably worth it in the mid levels.
An extra damage die or flat bonus is more equally applicable across levels and lacks the weird interactions. At the moment the only way to use a higher damage die (as opposed to other bonuses) is to wield a weapon two-handed that doesn't necessarily require it (normally something like a bastard sword, though there's a niche Fighter Feat that lets you do it with any one-handed weapon). Changing that seems completely unnecessary to achieve what people seem to want (ie: increased damage) and is really weird and inelegant in this system.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point in that post was entirely about the damage and the way it worked, with having anything give it being a bad idea, plus the idea that you can theoretically add any mechanic as a spell (ie: 'You can do this as a spell, because you can do anything as a spell, but doing this specific thing is a bad idea').
Although you hate the idea of using multiclassing understand that I'm only using it here as a worst case this is what it could cost to have spellcasting.I don't "hate" multi-classing, I just don't enjoy it. I've never multi-classed any of my characters, ever.
I multi-class a lot in pursuit of different conceptions and I'm very close to N N 959's opinion of the Ranger. He's got a good view of things. (I have even multi-classed Ranger with Druid in the past.)
Multi-classing a PF2 Ranger into Druid just to get spells isn't a perfect solution. Ranger spells weren't druid spells. There was some overlap, but they weren't the same list. The classes are more different than that.
One saving grace to PF2 is you can now make a Druid that I like. You have to use the Sorcerer class, but you can again (finally) have a druid that neither has a pet nor the ability to turn into an animal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multi-classing a PF2 Ranger into Druid just to get spells isn't a perfect solution. Ranger spells weren't druid spells. There was some overlap, but they weren't the same list. The classes are more different than that.
This is true, but I'm not really sure its relevant.The druid and bard have both had so many changes to their spell list that if you applied the same level of scrutiny I don't know that druid spells would be considered druid spells anymore. The few spells that really set the Ranger list apart (Gravity Bow, Instant Enemy) from the druid list are gone, but then again so are cleric staples like Divine Favor or Blessing of Fervor.
Those few old Ranger chestnuts that seem unlikely to make their way onto the Primal list seem pretty ripe to become Focus Spells, as well. So I think we will get those toys back pretty quick, even if they are missing from the playtest.
Multi-classing a PF2 Ranger into Druid just to get spells isn't a perfect solution. Ranger spells weren't druid spells. There was some overlap, but they weren't the same list. The classes are more different than that.
This is true, but I'm not really sure its relevant.The druid and bard have both had so many changes to their spell list that if you applied the same level of scrutiny I don't know that druid spells would be considered druid spells anymore. The few spells that really set the Ranger list apart (Gravity Bow, Instant Enemy) from the druid list are gone, but then again so are cleric staples like Divine Favor or Blessing of Fervor.
Those few old Ranger chestnuts that seem unlikely to make their way onto the Primal list seem pretty ripe to become Focus Spells, as well. So I think we will get those toys back pretty quick, even if they are missing from the playtest.
Divine power is gone too isn't it? I loved that spell, but i guess it was a bit stupid having a cleric out of nonwhere becoming a 'full BAB' class and getting hitpoints as a paladin...
Divine power is gone too isn't it? I loved that spell, but i guess it was a bit stupid having a cleric out of nonwhere becoming a 'full BAB' class and getting hitpoints as a paladin...
Multi-classing a PF2 Ranger into Druid just to get spells isn't a perfect solution. Ranger spells weren't druid spells. There was some overlap, but they weren't the same list. The classes are more different than that.
This is true, but I'm not really sure its relevant.The druid and bard have both had so many changes to their spell list that if you applied the same level of scrutiny I don't know that druid spells would be considered druid spells anymore. The few spells that really set the Ranger list apart (Gravity Bow, Instant Enemy) from the druid list are gone, but then again so are cleric staples like Divine Favor or Blessing of Fervor.
Those few old Ranger chestnuts that seem unlikely to make their way onto the Primal list seem pretty ripe to become Focus Spells, as well. So I think we will get those toys back pretty quick, even if they are missing from the playtest.
Eh, I'm trying to not to touch the merit of individual omissions, because A) limited content of the playtest and B) it seems unreasonable to expect there not to be some changes in a new edition. My point was more that "Ranger spells were X, Druid Spells were Y," isn't entirely relevant when druid spells are no longer Y.
Also, some cursory googling reveals the Ranger had less than a dozen unique spells in 2013. I'm sure that's grown a little bit, but that's a pretty small amount separating it from the druid spell list in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One saving grace to PF2 is you can now make a Druid that I like. You have to use the Sorcerer class, but you can again (finally) have a druid that neither has a pet nor the ability to turn into an animal.
Why do you need to be a Sorc to that? Isn't that just a Storm druid who opts not to take any companion or wild shape feats?
Not speaking for Chance Wyvernspur, but Sorc gives you two major things that Storm Druid doesn't. One, the Druid is stuck with Vancian casting. Two, the Druid is stuck with all that Anathema stuff.
Eh, I'm trying to not to touch the merit of individual omissions, because A) limited content of the playtest and B) it seems unreasonable to expect there not to be some changes in a new edition. My point was more that "Ranger spells were X, Druid Spells were Y," isn't entirely relevant when druid spells are no longer Y.
Also, some cursory googling reveals the Ranger had less than a dozen unique spells in 2013. I'm sure that's grown a little bit, but that's a pretty small amount separating it from the druid spell list in the first place.
Oh don't worry i was mostly mopping over losing my kinda of favorite spell from 3.5. But yes i got convinced by the the thread about essences that more spell-lists actually make the game worse by making some popular classes get more of them.
I actually do think powers are good solutions for things like gravity bow.
This is true, but I'm not really sure its relevant.I think the point is that whatever the Druid spell list is now, it doesn't really work for the Ranger.
Could you give a few examples of CRB spells that work for the ranger? That would make it easier for me to see what a ranger spell-list that works for the ranger looks like...