Captain Morgan's First Impressions

[N N 959]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Ranger is definitely my favorite class for the first week. Played Harsk through PFS 1-02 and it felt great.

I can totally see that. At low levels, a character can be comparatively competent at more things and feel like its agency is wide. I think the Harsk build is particularly clever in that his Ranger feat is Crossbow Ace, but he takes Flurry. That gives him some at-level viability at TWF and Ranged. Plus, the clan dagger and axes(with Sweep and Two-Hand) have some extra mechanics that can really broaden the combat options.

But I didn't see a lvl 5 Harsk. So I'm curious to see what route they take him and if his versatility starts to dry up. Will he continue to take Crossbow feats or TWF feats? Will they add any non-combat Ranger feats? What about the Buff path? You can't do it all and I'm skeptical that you can do more than one thing with satisfaction.

In my PFS experience, around level 4-6 players start to lose interest in a lot of their "concept" characters when they find them to be less effective because the game has to anticipate specialized characters. I'm under the impression that PF2 tried to address some of that, so I'll be watching to see how things progress.

[Ed Reppert]

Harsk build? What Harsk build? Where can I find it?

[Fallyna]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Harsk build? What Harsk build? Where can I find it?

Link here.

[Ed Reppert]

Thanks

[Michael Sayre]

N N 959 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Ranger is definitely my favorite class for the first week. Played Harsk through PFS 1-02 and it felt great.

I can totally see that. At low levels, a character can be comparatively competent at more things and feel like its agency is wide. I think the Harsk build is particularly clever in that his Ranger feat is Crossbow Ace, but he takes Flurry. That gives him some at-level viability at TWF and Ranged. Plus, the clan dagger and axes(with Sweep and Two-Hand) have some extra mechanics that can really broaden the combat options.

Thanks! I really liked the way that all came together when I was building him.

Quote:

But I didn't see a lvl 5 Harsk. So I'm curious to see what route they take him and if his versatility starts to dry up. Will he continue to take Crossbow feats or TWF feats? Will they add any non-combat Ranger feats? What about the Buff path? You can't do it all and I'm skeptical that you can do more than one thing with satisfaction.

I actually mapped him out through level 12 before locking in those Level 1 options. I don't have the excel sheet in front of me, but as I recall, at 2nd he grabs Quick Draw to make it easier to swap to his melee weapons after opening with his crossbow, at 4th he grabs Running Reload for when swapping to melee isn't the right move, at 6th he grabs Swift Tracker, at 8th he grabs Hazard Finder, at 10th he grabs Penetrating Shot, and at 12th he takes Double Prey (which helps both in and out of combat and also stretches his in-combat action economy and opens up some potential for capitalizing on things like the sweep property of his axe).

I'd need the spreadsheet to know what ancestry feats and skill feats are on his roadmap, but I know I was really favoring anything that played up his abilities as a scout and point man.

Quote:

In my PFS experience, around level 4-6 players start to lose interest in a lot of their "concept" characters when they find them to be less effective because the game has to anticipate specialized characters. I'm under the impression that PF2 tried to address some of that, so I'll be watching to see how things progress.

A big part of the issue here was how ridiculous the system mastery spread became once you got a few levels under your belt. While it's possible in PF1 from 1st level to have two characters with a level or more of difference in the numbers they're putting up on given sets of tasks, 4th or 5th level is where the curve became most pronounced and players operating at different points on the system mastery curve started diverging into virtually playing two different games. This created a situation where scenarios needed to be challenging enough to retain the interest of a player playing higher up on the curve but not so challenging that it became inaccessible for players lower on the curve; the result was basically that at as long as you specialized in a task or two you were probably fine, but higher concept characters (which often have long build-ups where they may be below curve for several levels or broader resource spreads that required them to be mediocre in many things at the cost of specialization) would likely struggle.

Comparatively, 5th level in PF2 is actually a great level for a character that went with a more resource intensive build. Having e.g. a 16 in STR and DEX as opposed to your ally's 18 STR and 14 DEX may have meant that the 18/14 character had a slight edge in melee over you this whole time, but now your level bumps can bring you up to 18 in both of those stats while the 18/14 character is looking at 19/16 or 16 and a bump to non-essential stat. Either way, if you're looking at e.g. a switch-hitter, their to-hit with either attack form is now comparable to the to-hit of the "specialist" (though the specialist likely has more versatility within their dedicated fighting style).

[N N 959]

Michael Sayre wrote:

Thanks! I really liked the way that all came together when I was building him.

Let me start by saying thank you for the post. Whenever those who are making the decisions post and interact, it makes the game feel more accessible and increases my own sense of investment.

Quote:

.., at 2nd he grabs Quick Draw to make it easier to swap to his melee weapons after opening with his crossbow, at 4th he grabs Running Reload for when swapping to melee isn't the right move, at 6th he grabs Swift Tracker, at 8th he grabs Hazard Finder, at 10th he grabs Penetrating Shot, and at 12th he takes Double Prey (which helps both in and out of combat and also stretches his in-combat action economy and opens up some potential for capitalizing on things like the sweep property of his axe).

Interesting. I'd be curious to see people respond to this build in PFS. It would seem your choices are heavily influenced by combat, a problem I am having as well.

I do like the thinking with Double Prey and Sweep. I am wondering how often that works out in actual use i.e. how often do the two Prey stand close enough. It's one of those things that seems to be easily/instinctively foiled by GMs

Quote:

...but I know I was really favoring anything that played up his abilities as a scout and point man.

Then there must have been some soul searching moments to have to leave out Scout's Warning, Favored Terrain, Skirmish Strike, Camouflage, Wardens' Step, and especially Terrain Master (+Favored Terrain).

The flavor and narrative of Terrain Master was a really hard for me to leave out, but I felt there are too many archery feats that feel I needed to recapture my PF1 Ranger. I also originally chose Hazard Finder but had to drop it, though I can see it being quintessential if one wants to implement a competent scout, which wasn't necessarily my build fous.

Quote:

Comparatively, 5th level in PF2 is actually a great level for a character that went with a more resource intensive build. Having e.g. a 16 in STR and DEX as opposed to your ally's 18 STR and 14 DEX may have meant that the 18/14 character had a slight edge in melee over you this whole time, but now your level bumps can bring you up to 18 in both of those stats while the 18/14 character is looking at 19/16 or 16 and a bump to non-essential stat.

This is also something that I am trying to get a measure of. The entire Playtest I feel I've been beaten about the head and shoulders that a +1 is a big deal on attacks, so giving up a +1 at low level conjures up a fear of endless posts telling me I'm doing it wrong.

I think the payoff is a little different for a dedicated meleer or archer and a player has to decide where they want to the sweet spot to be: level 5, level 10, level 15, etc?

Quote:

Either way, if you're looking at e.g. a switch-hitter, their to-hit with either attack form is now comparable to the to-hit of the "specialist" (though the specialist likely has more versatility within their dedicated fighting style).

Yes, I saw that Harsk feels like a switch hitter with a crossbow. Combine that with a Scout and your feat choices make sense and are inviting. On paper, it definitely feels like you've got elements that support all three focuses. I think the degree to which it feels satisfactory is going to depend on the player and normative game play and what level a player wants to experience different aspects. Your Ranger theme feats don't show up until 6th and 8th.

Though, I suspect the perception of what feels "Rangerish" may migrate from the narrative concepts to the mechanical/combat concepts.

Quote:

A big part of the issue here was how ridiculous the system mastery spread became once you got a few levels under your belt

Right. Your build would suggest that some of this has been ameliorated as it doesn't feel as paranoid about turf. Also, the restrictive nature of the classes and feat locking will help validated more choices. But I guess we won't know for sure until the community crowd-sourcing on multi-classing starts.

[MaxAstro]

I really don't understand how anyone can say that the class that can make six attacks at -2 is in any way underperforming...

Not to mention the class with the highest single shot damage potential of any class in the game.

[Michael Sayre]

MaxAstro wrote:

I really don't understand how anyone can say that the class that can make six attacks at -2 is in any way underperforming...

Not to mention the class with the highest single shot damage potential of any class in the game.

I believe, though I could be wrong, that the thrust of the matter in this instance is about the non-combat portions of the game.

Rangers have a modest array of abilities like Trackless Step that apply in and out of combat, but much of the chassis is tuned heavily towards combat. The utility that used to rest on the 4-level spell list has instead been broken up across various class features (optional and otherwise), skill feats, and other character resources, which can make it feel like the ranger is getting less. I believe that part of NN959's concerns is that the ranger feels more like a slayer to him. I can understand why they might feel that way, even if I see it differently.

I have a slightly different take on the matter, in that I felt like the PF1 ranger class really didn't evoke anything other than itself. To me, it was more of an homage to the history of the game, something that evolved organically from strange mechanical roots after being loosely inspired by some key pieces of fiction. I, personally, feel like the new ranger is actually a better fit for those characters in fiction (Aragorn, Drizzt Do'Urden, Elbryan Wyndon, and others) than the previous ranger was, but that's largely subjective. I definitely think the new ranger is more accessible, and I enjoy the way it plays, but there's certainly value in hearing opposing views. If nothing else, it tells us what kind of ranger feats, archetypes, etc. we should be looking at to make sure we're appealing to our entire audience.

[Squiggit]

I feel like the thing with feats is more a general issue with the game at large. Customization is great, but because so many of the class' options are tied to those customization points it can feel like a bottleneck too.

Sticking with the Ranger, Snares are kind of advertised as this big special thing they can do, but getting them online means your first general feat must be snare crafting and your first skill increase must go into crafting and then you actually pick up the feat to use snares efficiently at level 4. A big chunk of your low level options end up being pushed into just enabling this specific thing and it delays whatever else you consider a core part of your build.

Some of that is inevitable and kind of the point, but sometimes it feels like it goes a little bit too far.

For Rangers in particular, while the class' ability to hit things really hard is great, outside Hunt a lot of its core class features don't feel super meaty. I'm not sure it'd be balanced as is but if, say, Snare Specialist vs Animal Companion was a class path you picked up earlier on the class might feel more ranger-y. Or if some of the fluffier feats were mid or higher level class options.

... Off the feat topic but I'm kind of not huge on Outwit either. Obviously it's designed to be less combat focused (intimidate stuff and monster hunter nonwithstanding) but in play I kept having it come in conflict with buffs and my GM's own circumstance modifiers, while Flurry and Precision are built to stack with pretty much everything.

[N N 959]

Michael Sayre wrote:

I believe, though I could be wrong, that the thrust of the matter in this instance is about the non-combat portions of the game.

If by that you mean the things that feel traditionally Rangerish, then I agree. Doing my first build, I felt unable to choose traditional Ranger abilities for lack of feats and want of combat.

Quote:

Rangers have a modest array of abilities like Trackless Step that apply in and out of combat

I am curious how Trackless Step works in combat?

Quote:

but much of the chassis is tuned heavily towards combat. The utility that used to rest on the 4-level spell list has instead been broken up across various class features (optional and otherwise), skill feats, and other character resources, which can make it feel like the ranger is getting less.

Yes. And truthfully, I can live with less in theory. I can live with less if everyone else is getting less. I can live with less if what I am left with is actually more. Based on first impressions, I don't feel like I'm getting more, but that doesn't mean it can't/won't be fun or a better experience overall. I'll need to play more.

Quote:

I believe that part of NN959's concerns is that the ranger feels more like a slayer to him. I can understand why they might feel that way, even if I see it differently.

I wouldn't describe it that way. I would say that (as I said above) the Ranger has been stripped to make it more of a framework for supporting other concepts.

Quote:

I have a slightly different take on the matter, in that I felt like the PF1 ranger class really didn't evoke anything other than itself. To me, it was more of an homage to the history of the game, something that evolved organically from strange mechanical roots after being loosely inspired by some key pieces of fiction. I, personally, feel like the new ranger is actually a better fit for those characters in fiction (Aragorn, Drizzt Do'Urden, Elbryan Wyndon, and others) than the previous ranger was, but that's largely subjective.

I think this is spot on. The Ranger has been a thing unto itself, which is why I've largely rejected attempts to compare it to fictional icons. Recent fiction writers have used the concept for their own purposes and in doing so, as you have insightfully observed, they've modified what people think the class should be. That's neither right nor wrong. And I can certainly understand Paizo wanting to support a more modern view if they think that's what will sell.

Quote:

I definitely think the new ranger is more accessible...

I would agree. I also agree that the new form can imitate more of the current fiction.

Quote:

and I enjoy the way it plays

And I may as well. Time will tell. I think the problem for me arose when we were told that PF2 would let us tell the same stories. I can't tell the same stories...so now I'm going to find out what stories I will be telling and I'm honestly looking forward to PF2.

Quote:

but there's certainly value in hearing opposing views. If nothing else, it tells us what kind of ranger feats, archetypes, etc. we should be looking at to make sure we're appealing to our entire audience.

I would have liked to see the traditional/historical Ranger improved, rather than the paradigm changed. I think the old Paradigm worked, has worked, could continue to work. But fixing it requires that the game values what a Ranger could do as opposed to giving it things that the game values i.e. make Tracking a fundament aspect of game-play rather than one of many skill checks. But I don't think PF2 is getting there from here. Maybe PF3?

I will say this again, I am looking forward to PF2 and seeing how the Ranger plays. Just because it's different doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable. After all, there is a lot I didn't really like about the 3.5 Ranger in terms of implementation.

[Ed Reppert]

N N 959 wrote:

I think the problem for me arose when we were told that PF2 would let us tell the same stories. I can't tell the same stories...so now I'm going to find out what stories I will be telling and I'm honestly looking forward to PF2.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "story". Is Rise Of The Runelords a story about how some intrepid adventurers defeated a grave threat to Golarion from out of the past, or is it a story about how some ranger cast a bunch of spells?

[N N 959]

Ed Reppert wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I think the problem for me arose when we were told that PF2 would let us tell the same stories. I can't tell the same stories...so now I'm going to find out what stories I will be telling and I'm honestly looking forward to PF2.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "story". Is Rise Of The Runelords a story about how some intrepid adventurers defeated a grave threat to Golarion from out of the past, or is it a story about how some ranger cast a bunch of spells?

Cute. It's funny that people keep wanting to make this about spells. The AD&D Ranger didn't get spells until 8th level. 3.5, you don't get them until 4th and not at all if you're just dipping. Even when you get spells, you get like 2 that you have to choose in advance. Spells..represent a narrative. They give depth to a concept. Yes, I found them useful in PF1, but it was more about how that aspect of the class helped make it unique. This may sound strange, but I enjoyed it as part of the art form of the class. I guess people don't get that/see that/value that....and that's fine. I don't really enjoy casters. Only thing is I don't expect/want Paizo to change them so that I will.

As to the telling "the same stories" it's about how my character impacts the game world. Being able to casts Resist Energy was a neat thing. It allowed me to brave obstacles that I would otherwise have avoided. Wild Empathy was also a fun ability. Very limited use, but I used it. It allowed me to be creative in situations where other martials could not. It made the game fun. Isn't that the point? So now, neither of those is a default part of the Ranger experience. Remember, I'm starting from having played and enjoyed the Ranger in PF1. So maybe my expectations are different than someone who hasn't done both of those.

[Ed Reppert]

I know it's not about the spells, per se. That was just an easy example.

"As to the telling "the same stories" it's about how my character impacts the game world."

That's fair enough, I suppose.

[N N 959]

Ed Reppert wrote:

I know it's not about the spells, per se. That was just an easy example.

"As to the telling "the same stories" it's about how my character impacts the game world."

That's fair enough, I suppose.

Cool.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

... Off the feat topic but I'm kind of not huge on Outwit either. Obviously it's designed to be less combat focused (intimidate stuff and monster hunter nonwithstanding) but in play I kept having it come in conflict with buffs and my GM's own circumstance modifiers, while Flurry and Precision are built to stack with pretty much everything.

Yes and yes. When I go through the feat options, one of my decision points is frequency of use and consistency of benefit. I don't know if this is limited to the Ranger, but a lot of the theme based abilities are both situational and of unknowable value (especially for new players). I know that I'll be in combat against Concealed creatures and a +2 is going to help. I don't know how often the GMs going to give me access to a wild animal and to what extent he or she will let me succeed with it on Wild Empathy and what I'll get to do. If I got it for free, then it's icing if it works. But if I give up a combat feat and the GM keeps shutting me down...that's going to get frustrating and annoying.

I refer to this as an orthogonal choice and think the character design should not force players to choose between orthogonal class choices. I think Paizo nailed that with separating the General Feats from the Class Feats, but overlooked that within the classes feats themselves. But doing it my way creates more of a unified experience for the class, which may be something Paizo wants to avoid.

[Squiggit]

Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Fighters and Barbarians were already super modular and lacking in specific core features in 1e so they handle the new system pretty well, though everyone is going to feel the way choices work in this game to some extent.

The trouble for Rangers (and Champions, Druids and Monks to varying degrees) is that they had a very specific list of class features designed to create a very specific character theme and that's kind of fundamentally at odds with PF2's class design, which empashizes modularity and one big class feature.

I think Druids come out okay, because Spells are a really effective core feature in terms of identity and their initial order choice adds good flavor. They definitely feel less than in 1e, but that was kind of necessary anyways.
Champions are in a similar spot to Rangers, but their theme was a lot more focused than the Ranger's so generally speaking I think they end up feeling flavorful (although I know some people aren't happy with the specific direction of the class, that's a separate issue I think).
Monks... were a huge mess in core and Qinggong made them modular anyways so they don't really deal with those problems in the same way.

Rangers in 1e, as already stated, were really really all over the place. Hunt is a great class feature, but it can only really encapsulate one piece of their original identity because they have so many unrelated features all kind of coming together. They're wilderness warriors, but they're also fighter-druid hybrids, but they're also martials who don't slack on skills... There's a lot going on.

I actually think that last part is really important too. 1e Rangers were arguably one of the better skill monkeys in core and 2e has completely removed 'good at skills' as a character niche (with the Rogue as a unique exception), further complicating the Ranger's new identity.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Fighters and Barbarians were already super modular and lacking in specific core features in 1e so they handle the new system pretty well, though everyone is going to feel the way choices work in this game to some extent.

I haven't looked into the other classes, so I wasn't confident in making this call, but my intuition was exactly as you have stated it here.

Quote:

The trouble for Rangers (and Champions, Druids and Monks to varying degrees) is that they had a very specific list of class features designed to create a very specific character theme and that's kind of fundamentally at odds with PF2's class design, which empashizes modularity and one big class feature.

Again, have only glanced at Druids and Paladins (no clue on Monks) but this is also what I suspected. Affirming to see someone else has the same perspective.

Quote:

I think Druids come out okay...

Have to say all of this lines right up with my views on the subject. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Quote:

Rangers in 1e, as already stated, were really really all over the place. Hunt is a great class feature, but it can only really encapsulate one piece of their original identity because they have so many unrelated features all kind of coming together.

I guess for me, it was all related as it was part of what made the Ranger the class that it was. My main issue is that a lot of the narrative stuff wasn't particularly leveraged by normative play. I was hoping PF2 would address that in a more demonstrative way. But I came to that realization during the Playtest.

Quote:

I actually think that last part is really important too. 1e Rangers were arguably one of the better skill monkeys in core and 2e has completely removed 'good at skills' as a character niche (with the Rogue as a unique exception), further complicating the Ranger's new identity.

Yes. I noticed that the Ranger got backdoor nerfed on skills while almost all the others got more. When you add that to the loss of default narrative, the class seems more narrowly directed at combat. I think Paizo may have tried to compensate the class by giving it more Perception. Considering how important a stat that is, in actual game play, that might suffice and considerably contribute to the impact. It also seems like a Ranger's Saves might be a little better and its baseline combat? Haven't done the math, so I could be wrong.

Oddly enough, I don't mind the skills nerf. I say this as a person who took Fast Learner and Improvisation on my main Ranger. I'm willing to give up skill territory to the Rogue, provided the class got something in return. But what was that? What does the Ranger call its own?

I guess I won't know until I get more experience, figuratively and literally :)