Not enough Class Feat slots?


Advice

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

citricking wrote:
graystone wrote:


citricking wrote:
It still gets its level bonus to all its saves, AC, and hp. You really should take the other feats, but if your using something for its support action it seems fine, it will probably be unconscious a lot, but not dead too often I think.
It doesn't get the stat bonuses or damage bonuses or proficiency ups or the ability to hit magic or it's specialty...
the point was you could use it for its support only, not to attack. So it's to hit and damage being awful is okay.

Hit and damage are the LEAST of it's issues as just being in combat means it'll get targeted and it's AC getting farther and farther behind means it'll get hit and more importantly crit more often. It's unarmored proficiency doesn't go up, it's dex doesn't go up... How does it support when it's as good as dead because it's an easy target and clearly helping you out making it a noticeable target? It could only get worse if you paint a bullseye on it and cover it in raw meat... :P


What about a houserule that lets you take any type of feat at odd levels? Sounds like it could be a quick fix without disrupting the balance of 1 feat per level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
citricking wrote:
It still gets its level bonus to all its saves, AC, and hp. You really should take the other feats, but if your using something for its support action it seems fine, it will probably be unconscious a lot, but not dead too often I think.

OMG, that had me laughing.

Yeah...I dropped the animal completely from my build. In PF1 all my Rangers have companions. Oh well.

Citrik, you seem to be offended by my post? I honestly thought your post was tongue-in-cheek.

Graystone is saying you need all (or most) of the animal companion feats but you're saying you only need one. Then you admit that the animal will "probaby be unconscious a lot, but not dead too often..." Sorry, I thought this was meant to be dry humor. If you really think this is a valid outcome, then I agree, it's not funny.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
For 'competent at' I would say that they don't feel that the build that the player is going for doesn't work at all and they can't do the thing that they want to do - but it isn't going to outshine a different class that is designed specifically for that.

I don't think an RPG game is going to survive if the classes merely feel "competent." There has to be sense of wonder, joy, excitement at getting to play as your class. A player has to feel like the game not only validates his or her choices, but rewards them.

There has to be moments when the player and the party feel grateful that X class was part of the group. I can definitely say that during the Playtest I was gratefu for the Bard, goblin Wizard, Paladin, Cleric of Nethys. But I wasn't even grateful for my Ranger. So that's one data point. But Ranger had to be the least played class in the entire Playtest, so there were obviously problems with the class. Paizo has tweaked it. Did they tweak it enough? Once were at say, 5th level, are you going to be comforted by someone playing a Ranger in the group the way you will if its a Fighter, Cleric, or Wizard? (Yes, I'm assuming players of equal system mastery).

Quote:

So no, a ranger isn't going to be as good of a fighter as the fighter is. So when sitting next to an Archery Fighter, a ranger may feel a bit lacking.

Similarly, when sitting next to an animal companion druid, the ranger's animal companion will likely feel a bit anaemic.

That is the design space that we are working in.

Well, it is for Rangers. So what is the Ranger best at that is actually needed for normative play?

Quote:

But an archery based ranger is going to feel very good at archery and dealing a lot of damage at range. The ranger will feel competent at it.

A ranger with an animal companion will feel like the animal companion is helpful and of great benefit in combat. The ranger will feel competent at it.

Unfortunately those assertions have no credibility at this point. Worse, if "competent" is the bar for a Ranger, the class is already a failure. Nobody plays a Fighter to be competent in combat, or a Rogue to be competent at thievery. I think that fact that several are in here talking about "competency" is indicative of some fundamental problems the class has to overcome since the Playtest.

Quote:
And it won't be as powerful as a class that specializes in the same thing.

So what can the Ranger specialize in and be the best at? Is that going to be substantively useful in game play?

Quote:
From looking at the class, it feels to me like that one thing is damaging one enemy. Singling out one target and attacking it to the...

If your assessment tells you that the reason to play a Ranger above any other class is "single target damage" then I think the class may be in trouble. Martials fight one target at a time already. I am skeptical the Ranger is going to be noticeably better at it than the other classes, and probably noticeably worse than a Fighter.

I don't want to simply feel competent, I want to feel inspired. I want to inspire others. My Ranger did that in PF1.

Let's see how this plays out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh hey, I'm famous.

For me the biggest frustration isn't really a matter of balance and I think getting stuck on numbers is straying from the core of the issue a bit.

Generally speaking if there's one thing you want to do, it's fine. You can invest in that one thing and have some feats left over to flesh out your character, but if there are a couple features you want to emphasize it can be really slow to get your build online.

A PF1 style spells and companion ranger can take companion, druid dedication, spellcasting, mature companion and get their first feat they can use outside that concept at level 8. Remember that PF1 archetype that replaces spells with traps? Going with that idea instead gives you a floating feat at level 2, but eats your first general feat and skill increase instead.

If you want to build something like an eldritch knight or magus, you don't get proper spellcasting until level 4 and have to invest most of your early game resources into getting there. Even then it's only one spell a day until 6 and doesn't really take off until 8th (when you can spend another feat to expand slots). A lot of people were arguing that this was a legitimate replacement for the Magus, but I think that's way too slow.

It's not so much that these builds are necessarily unfair from a balance perspective, for argument's sake let's just assume they're completely fine.

It's that both of these aren't really 'out there' as far as D&D character archetypes go and if you want to make them work, you're not going to have any room to really personalize the idea until mid or maybe even late game and if there's anything else you want to add to the concept it's going to come online very late.

For some people this is probably a good thing, since it makes choices more meaningful and I get that.

For me though, it often leads to PF2's modularity making me feel less like I'm incredibly flexible and more like I'm constantly compromising on which part of my character concept I'm okay with delaying or dropping in order to make another part of my idea work better.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
It's that both of these aren't really 'out there' as far as D&D character archetypes go and if you want to make them work, you're not going to have any room to really personalize the idea until mid or maybe even late game and if there's anything else you want to add to the concept it's going to come online very late

This is what worries me the most with the game as a whole: by the time I get things in play so it feels 'whole', it's about the time my games tend to start winding down so I'm most likely never going to get much time playing a fully realized concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


For me though, it often leads to PF2's modularity making me feel less like I'm incredibly flexible and more like I'm constantly compromising on which part of my character concept I'm okay with delaying or dropping in order to make another part of my idea work better.

I have the same exact reaction. And to repeat what you said in the post of your that I quoted, some of this is true for every class, but a theme-based class gets hammered by this approach.

My response is to try and accept this as the new paradigm for the Ranger. There is not going to be this default experience of Wild Empathy, Swift Tracking, Hiding in Plain Sight. No utility from spells (at least not until they offer it as they suggested, but even then it may come at the cost of more feats we don't have).

The upside, if we want to look at it, is that you do get to make more concept builds (not something I needed or wanted). The other upside is the class has more replay-ability. There are enough interesting feats that you kind of get trapped into wanting to try different builds..

I agree with graystone's observation however, if I have to get to level 10 before I start feeling empowered, that's not going to work. I'm sure other classes have some similar issues, but I'm only familiar with the Ranger in PF2.


Claxon wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

I could understand if the "combat styles" were what Class Feats were for, but they're also used for the flavorful RP stuff that used to come baked into the class chassis.

Whereas now the class chassis offers you (almost) nothing but proficiency upgrades and feats have to cover twice the ground they did before - except you still only get one every other level.

And again, maybe it's just because I've got Ranger goggles on (I just took a look at Alchemist and they have significantly less feat options per level to choose from, at least at a cursory glance) but when Exploration options have to compete with Combat options, that feels rough.

Yeah, they made things real hard choices about what you want to excel at instead of giving you everything for free.

Yes characters are less powerful in PF2 and have a smaller suite of abilities at their command.

This is all intentional.

This is part and parcel to why I haven't committed to switching to PF2. I plan to play a one shot or maybe a short scenario to see how I feel about it, but I definitely feel "downgraded" in comparison to PF1.

Do they have a smaller suite of abilities though? I mean, content wise, yeah, it can't compete with almost 10 years of production, but base/foundation wise it seems we got more choices than ever. Every class feat seems to be 1-5 choices depending on class and level, where before a lot of classes were the same at the same levels except for combat feats, before archetypes became a must and vanilla classes stopped being as useful. Anyone can now pick up dex and be decent at sneaking, or cha and socializing, and skill feats are plenty all around to supplement those. Casters can focus on metamagic feats or game changers like wizard swapping out spells, not to mention the choices for class such as thesis or rackets or instincts.

I don't think it's fair to compare PF2 to today's PF1 with it's hoard of content. But baseline with vanilla classes, for example three ranger in PF1 before all archetypes, would never be able to match the variety of PF2 rangers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I don't think it's fair to compare PF2 to today's PF1 with it's hoard of content. But baseline with vanilla classes, for example three ranger in PF1 before all archetypes, would never be able to match the variety of PF2 rangers.

I agree that if we are going to compare (which I think is fruitless at this point), we'd have to focus on Core.

My issues, however, is that "variety" doesn't make the class better or fun. A "vanilla" class can be an order of magnitude more fun than a customizable one, provided the "vanilla" build inspires people to play it. It would seem the paradigm for PF2, and maybe other RPG's of late, is to try and idiot proof the system, but put the onus on the player to figure out what's fun to play.

I would rather have one vanilla build that had tremendous purpose than the ability to customize something that amounted to shifting chairs on the Titanic. Not saying the PF2 Ranger is a dud, but build options were not why I started playing AD&D and loved it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I was inspired to build a two dogslicer goblin ranger and he feels quite good at level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reckless wrote:

I was inspired to build a two dogslicer goblin ranger and he feels quite good at level 1.

That's great. But as someone who has played PFS for the last seven or so years, PF1 did not suffer from people lacking inspiration to make 1st level characters.

PF1 struggled to keep the game interesting for those concept characters past level 4. Paizo thinks they may have fixed a lot of this. Time will tell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Woah, where did those goalposts go? A minute ago we were not interesting until after lvl 10, now we're good until 4th level?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reckless wrote:

Woah, where did those goalposts go? A minute ago we were not interesting until after lvl 10, now we're good until 4th level?

???? No goal posts have been shifted. We're discussing the idea that waiting until lvl 10 for the class to get the real cool feats is problematic. For example Monster Hunter is almost pointless until you can take Master Monster Hunter at 10.

I'm pointing out that PF1, at least in PFS, has a never-ending supply of people wanting to make concept builds at 1st level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I don't think it's fair to compare PF2 to today's PF1 with it's hoard of content. But baseline with vanilla classes, for example three ranger in PF1 before all archetypes, would never be able to match the variety of PF2 rangers.

Variety? Absolutely. There are many more ways to build a Ranger and you can much more viably build a bunch of concepts that didn't exist in PF1.

But the issue isn't variety, but the price of that variety, how much options cost vs how much you have to spend.

Comparing the two, a PF1 ranger at level 4 has, essentially, six class feats worth of stuff and the PF2 ranger only has three class feats to spend between them.

The PF1 ranger also has an above average skill progression that can't really be replicated in PF2 either.

Just to reiterate: I personally think PF2's design options are much more interesting and feats are generally much more fun than PF1 feats and I do like the PF2 ranger and the way it plays.

But N N 959 has a point that there's definitely a sense of constantly playing catchup or deciding which parts of your build you're willing to give up if you're interested in some specific framework like this.

The PF2 model of having a limited list of core features supplemented by a big list of feats works really well for classes that are already vague and modular by design, like the Wizard or Fighter, but it can definitely feel kind of painful if you're used to classes having highly themed packages of abilities, because you'll just never have enough spare feats to buy into all of that in PF2.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, it appears that a number of people are not happy with new system because of the many of the issues outlined above. Of course, there are a large chunk of people who like the new system. Remember that the people who post on these forums are the core group who are heavily into the game. I would expect them to be saying things like "I like the new system and with a few MINOR tweaks will be more awesome to play than PF1." If the vast majority of the the posters are not in that camp, that would be worrisome

The problem is that the people who do not like the new system will continue to play PF1 until it becomes "fun" (much like people deciding to play Pathfinder when D&D 4th Ed came out). The question is how much if anything does this impact sales of pathfinder 2.0.

PF Society will be interesting to watch because if they support PF1 and gaming sessions still focus on PF1 into next year (which they appear to headed), this does not bode well for the transition. My expectation was that PF Society would announce the change over and stop legacy support within a month or two of the new system coming out in order to promote the new system but that is not the case

Full disclosure, I think the new system is good. I have a few minor quibbles with the classes (<cough> sorcerer vs wizard) but in all I like the basic design better than PF1. Unfortunately, it will be sometime next year before I can play the new system in PF Society.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I hate to break the news to you, but this is working as intended.
I don't know that it's "working as intended." Michael Sayre left a very informative post on the issues with the PF1 Ranger from Piazo's perspective. I interpreted his post as suggesting Paizo felt like they were giving people wanted they wanted, a class that supports more concepts. I don't think Paizo was necessarily trying to nerf the class. It just worked out that way for those of us who were playing full blooded Rangers in PF1.

I must not be most people as they didn’t give me what I was hoping for. If I were to pick out my favorite character to play, it’s an Elven Ranger whose preferred weapon is a longbow. I tried playing it in a couple of play test sessions and, to me at least, it didn’t feel like I was playing a ranger at all. Most of the classic archery feats were aligned for fighters and the longbow was nerfed with the volley penalty (not a fan of what they’ve done with Elves or races in general, but that’s another issue). As the official release kept these rules the same, I guess I’ll be sticking with PF1 and the full blooded rangers, to borrow your phrase...


Hsui wrote:
Unfortunately, it will be sometime next year before I can play the new system in PF Society.

PFS is already using PF2 content. I am GMing a PFS PF2 campaign using PbP. There's room for one more player if you're interested.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One nit-picky point about the ancestry feats. They vary widely in usefulness and having to take/not take relatively useless skills to open it up. Human appears to be the clear winner for almost all cases except if you are working on specialized builds. So instead of ancestry feats being cool feats highlighting relatively equal paths, there are some which are just plain better

Human L5 "Clever Improviser" - You can use ANY skill including those not yet designed and are only 2 pips lower than someone trained in the feat after L7. No prerequisite needed. Skill monkey classes are rendered quite a bit less important

Dwarf L5 - both require L1 ancestry feats to be taken and then give you either a shove ability or crit spec with subset of weapons

Goblin L5 - requires L1 ancestry feat to be taken and get crit specialization with goblin weapons


Otha wrote:
I must not be most people as they didn’t give me what I was hoping for.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you won't really enjoy what's here. I was definitely in your camp during the Playtest. But, as I've posted already, you have to set aside you expectations from PF1. Think of this as a new game rather than an improvement to PF1.

There are some elegant things they've done with PF2. Now that I'm out of Playtest mode, it's easier for me to appreciate some of the ingenuity in the choices. I also have more capacity to understand the problems they chose to solve and how they solved them (even if I don't think those were the right problems).

The class design system is actually innovative in and of itself, it just doesn't allow one to recapture the Ranger of PF1. Paizo could fix that. But for the moment, I'm eager to try out this system and see if it actually is more fun as is. Now, I won't complain if they give us back spells, Wild Empathy, etc. But simply getting those things back for free isn't really the fix for the class, imo. I would totally keep the feat starved Ranger if the thematic choices had far more actual benefit in game play. Make things like Tracking, Wild Empathy, Covering Tracks, have some substantive benefits regardless of locale and simply boost them in natural terrain.

All that aside, I would recommend that you build a Ranger and play it. Get some actual levels under your belt and then give feedback. Paizo isn't going to change things unless they think they need to and players are the ones that can convince them of that. Your input will have more weight and insight if you've got actual game experience behind it.

The Exchange

Also disliking the incredibly bland animal companions. I understand the need to nerf the large cat but now you have the owl being identical to the tiger and the dino is just a reskinned bear (who is a tier better than the cat, wolf). Pity that they can only really use light armor due to the +2 limit to AC from items


Otha wrote:
I must not be most people as they didn’t give me what I was hoping for. If I were to pick out my favorite character to play, it’s an Elven Ranger whose preferred weapon is a longbow. I tried playing it in a couple of play test sessions and, to me at least, it didn’t feel like I was playing a ranger at all. Most of the classic archery feats were aligned for fighters and the longbow was nerfed with the volley penalty (not a fan of what they’ve done with Elves or races in general, but that’s another issue). As the official release kept these rules the same, I guess I’ll be sticking with PF1 and the full blooded rangers, to borrow your phrase...

Yes, well that's part of the point, to get rid of PF1's "one true weapon/armour" philosophy. There's literally never a reason to use a shortbow in PF1 if you have proficiency in a longbow. Similarly, the "classic archery feats" were basically ways to get you back up to a normal person's level, instead of the trap you started in, and a requirement instead of an option.

(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)

PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
There are some elegant things they've done with PF2.

I have to agree but it's like it's an elegant high end sports car and just when I start to enjoy myself, I go to readjust my seat only to find I'm sitting on a crate... Sure I can go 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds but I'm still on a crate and it's uncomfortable and I can't enjoy the ride. That's the best way I can explain PF2 to me. It requires aftermarket parts and I have to decide if it's worth the time/effort/cost to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Yes, well that's part of the point, to get rid of PF1's "one true weapon/armour" philosophy. There's literally never a reason to use a shortbow in PF1 if you have proficiency in a longbow. Similarly, the "classic archery feats" were basically ways to get you back up to a normal person's level, instead of the trap you started in, and a requirement instead of an option.

(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)

PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations.

Well yeah I agree the new weapon traits are excellent.

But PF1e never had you buy into basic competence. The assumption was that everyone starts as a basic commoner with little to no training. It's now that you have to buy back into the standard math expectation (see the multiple threads on trying to not fall behind your own class.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Yes, well that's part of the point, to get rid of PF1's "one true weapon/armour" philosophy. There's literally never a reason to use a shortbow in PF1 if you have proficiency in a longbow. Similarly, the "classic archery feats" were basically ways to get you back up to a normal person's level, instead of the trap you started in, and a requirement instead of an option.

(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)

PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations.

Well yeah I agree the new weapon traits are excellent.

But PF1e never had you buy into basic competence. The assumption was that everyone starts as a basic commoner with little to no training. It's now that you have to buy back into the standard math expectation (see the multiple threads on trying to not fall behind your own class.)

Ok, shoot a bow at someone in melee. Oh, wait, you have to get Precise Shot for that?

Try grappling someone? Oh wait, you need Improved Grapple for that?
What about pushing someone backwards? Guess what you need?
The ability to move in, swing, and move away?
The minimum AC level you need to purchase to not die?
The requirement that every martial character has to be Power Attacking?

All of that is basic competence level PF2 assumes.

What is not assumed is that wizards learn how to use orc necksplitters with the same proficiency as staves.


Welp, I'm really sorry, after I re read what I wrote from you quoting me I said the wrong thing, that's what I get for thinking of multiple things at a time.

When I said, "you didnt buy into basic competence" I meant, "you didnt buy into a normal person's level." A normal person can't do anything you have listed, and those that can are equivalent to lv1-5 of PF1e.

I'm not trying to move the goal post, just an honest mistake I should had caught but didnt and I'm sorry about it.

***********
But you are right PF2e does make 1st lv characters a lot more competent. And it's a great part of the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Ok, shoot a bow at someone in melee. Oh, wait, you have to get Precise Shot for that?

Try grappling someone? Oh wait, you need Improved Grapple for that?
What about pushing someone backwards? Guess what you need?
The ability to move in, swing, and move away?
The minimum AC level you need to purchase to not die?
The requirement that every martial character has to be Power Attacking?

All of that is basic competence level PF2 assumes.

No, that's completely incorrect. PF2 doesn't assume any basic class competence, at least not for the Ranger. You're confusing game simplification. It's exactly as Temperans said, you have to buy your class competency.. The PF2 Ranger isn't any better at using a bow than the PF1 Ranger. In fact, it's worse. And now, every Ranger has to pay dearly for an animal companion that can withstand at-level combat..

Not only does PF2 require you to buy competence in your class, it has feat locked entire approaches to the game to certain classes. I have a sword and board Ranger in PF1 that is achieved within the confines of the class. That isn't even possible in PF2. Granted, that may change with new content.

Personally, I think the global reduction of agency is a good thing. PF2 does a better job of dividing up the territory and then keeping classes in their lane. Even the Dedications seem to have an intelligent design in curtailing the class dipping and cherry picking. And though this seems to have abused what was the historical Ranger, a lot of the stuff lost wasn't doing much or easy to leverage.

No, I think Paizo stripped the Ranger because they obviously don't think the historical Ranger was valued by the community at large. I think they are wrong. I think Paizo is overly influenced by forum posters and I believe the zeitgeist here is dominated by a min/max mentality that did not value the Ranger as a unique piece of art, but as a bunch of mechanical assets that were burdened with dated narrative. So be it. Let's see what this "Ranger" can do.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
There's literally never a reason to use a shortbow in PF1 if you have proficiency in a longbow. Similarly, the "classic archery feats" were basically ways to get you back up to a normal person's level, instead of the trap you started in, and a requirement instead of an option.

Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow...

I never considered choosing to be a ranger archer as a trap, but more of a career choice; I knew going in the first couple of feats (PBS, Precise Shot) would be scripted. I really don't see much difference now either as far as that goes. You say that feats are options in PFS2 as opposed to requirements but, seems to me, you pretty much have to start with Hunted Shot at first level and then Hunter's Aim at second if you plan on being a ranger specializing with a bow. It's just now, you probably have to take a dip in fighter early on to get some of the other archer feats, especially if you want to use a longbow...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Not only does PF2 require you to buy competence in your class, it has feat locked entire approaches to the game to certain classes. I have a sword and board Ranger in PF1 that is achieved within the confines of the class. That isn't even possible in PF2. Granted, that may change with new content.

I don't understand what you mean, that a sword and board ranger isn't possible in PF2. Get a steel shield and shield spike, take Versatile Human or General Training for Shield Block, and take Twin Takedown. An effective sword and board ranger at level 1. If you don't want to be human, then you can take Shield Block at level 3, and settle for the +2 AC until then.

The Exchange

Well, after discussing with the other people in my group, PF2 is off the table until all the flaws are worked off. We don't plan to transition until maybe end of 2020 if the Advanced Class Guide fixes most of the problems. That means Society play which is also keeping PF1 is a go.

Good luck and always have fun gaming

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Otha wrote:
Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow...

Eh. If you can get a movement speed of 30 (and you probably can) you can usually spend one action to get rid of the Volley penalty (which is what Point Blank shot does, just without the conditional). And the DPR on the longbow is a fair bit better.

I'm not the biggest fan of volley, but the reduction to 30 feet makes the longbow quite usable and even optimal in many games, even ignoring Point Blank shot entirely.


lordcirth wrote:
I don't understand what you mean, that a sword and board ranger isn't possible in PF2. Get a steel shield and shield spike, take Versatile Human or General Training for Shield Block, and take Twin Takedown. An effective sword and board ranger at level 1. If you don't want to be human, then you can take Shield Block at level 3, and settle for the +2 AC until then.

No, that's not a sword and board Ranger, or more accurately, it's not a "Weapon and Shield" Ranger. One feat, does not equal an entire Combat Style. Weapon and Shield was a combat style, like Archery, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two Handed Fighting, etc. which gave access to a shield feats even if you didn't satisfy the requirements. The gem of this Style is Shield Slam and then Shield Master. Neither of those are available as part of the Ranger class.

But as I already stated, a Hunter's Edge that makes more sense for shields could certainly be added, as well as shield feats. Will they? It would require allowing the Ranger to take shield feats that are locked under the Champion. Does Pazo really want to do that? If they do it in one case, people are going to want it for others. Once you start letting classes out of their lane, you're back to PF1 problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Otha wrote:
Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow...

Eh. If you can get a movement speed of 30 (and you probably can) you can usually spend one action to get rid of the Volley penalty (which is what Point Blank shot does, just without the conditional). And the DPR on the longbow is a fair bit better.

I'm not the biggest fan of volley, but the reduction to 30 feet makes the longbow quite usable and even optimal in many games, even ignoring Point Blank shot entirely.

I've taken this approach. I did, in fact, raise my Move to 30 just for this reason. What remains to be seen is how viable this is. How often can I get to 30'? Will the GM instinctively try and foil that because he or she knows I am going to take a volley penalty?

With the lack of general AoO's locking people down, I suspect it might be a lot harder to use front liners for cover. So Volley could translate into the reality that a longbow user is constantly going to be giving up an action to avoid a -2 penalty. That's neither inspiring nor fun. Having used a shortbow in the Playtest, I found it demoralizing as someone wanting to do ranged damage. Having to constantly run around because you suffer a Volley penalty is going to make my Ranger feel "incompetent" at combat archery when compared to a Fighter.

I'm starting out with a shortbow and we'll see what happens when/if I get a composite longbow.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you won't really enjoy what's here. I was definitely in your camp during the Playtest. But, as I've posted already, you have to set aside you expectations from PF1. Think of this as a new game rather than an improvement to PF1.

I admire your outlook even though I don't share it. I'm an old school AD&D player from the seventies and eighties. I hadn't rp'ed in years when I came upon an online PBP event a while back and got my introduction to PFS. I loved the system as it was similar to what I had played in days of yore but it also improved upon it; I was hooked. As you stated, PF2 is a new game; it doesn't feel similar at all, at least not to me. I played around with creating a ranger with the newly released rules but I had no desire to play him when I was finished; I guess it's true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'll just stick with PF1 as long as the PFS PBP forums here support that edition...but I'll check out the PF2 forums from time to time to see if you have any more insight upon playing a new ranger...

N N 959 wrote:
Paizo isn't going to change things unless they think they need to and players are the ones that can convince them of that. Your input will have more weight and insight if you've got actual game experience behind it.

I voiced my opinion in my play test survey and a little on the play test forums but I was obviously in the minority; the ship has already sailed and my beating a dead horse would not be beneficial to anyone. I wasn't exactly their target audience for PF2...they're trying to draw in new and more people to play and that's a good goal.

I'm just grateful to Paizo for publishing PF1 10+ years ago as it's brought me numerous hours of enjoyment these past several years...and will likely continue to do so for a while yet. I hope PF2 is a big success for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otha wrote:
I admire your outlook even though I don't share it.

In the absence of hope, you have despair. So I am hoping PF2 is fun. Plus, a lot of what we enjoy in life is a matter of perspective. Like you, I started with AD&D. PF1 wasn't AD&D, but I came to enjoy it. PF2 isn't PF1, but I'm going to keep an open mind.

Quote:
I hadn't rp'ed in years when I came upon an online PBP event a while back and got my introduction to PFS. I loved the system as it was similar to what I had played in days of yore but it also improved upon it; I was hooked.

I have a very similar story. I mainly play PbP. I didn't "love" PFS, but it was the best thing going and I got tired of the constant house ruling in non-PFS games. So Paizo got some of my disposable income.

Quote:
...but I'll check out the PF2 forums from time to time to see if you have any more insight upon playing a new ranger...

I plan on doing some write-ups once I have some games/levels to give me a deeper prospective/understanding/insight. I need to experience the Ranger in the totality of the game, after the community's system mastery has improved.

N N 959 wrote:
I voiced my opinion in my play test survey and a little on the play test forums but I was obviously in the minority*** I wasn't exactly their target audience for PF2...they're trying to draw in new and more people to play and that's a good goal.

The forums are a little frustrating in this regard. You were probably in the "vocal" minority. I would bet money that the majority of people who actually played pure-Rangers in PF1 share our opinions. I don't think that group is well represented by the forums.

It's my experience that the mindset on the forums is dominated by those who see the classes as an array of mechanics and those players approached the Ranger as a collection of organs. Paizo thus chose to dissect the Ranger and to let people buy the organs a la carte, only....they are charging so much for the constituent parts that you can't afford to Frankenstein it back together. "Put a spleen here, a kidney there...I'd call that a 'competent' human. You don't really need the lungs."

Quote:
the ship has already sailed and my beating a dead horse would not be beneficial to anyone.

I disagree. What's the chance Paizo got this class 100% correct after botching it during the Playtest? I'd put it at 0%. If Paizo is at all realistic, they can't believe there isn't more work to be done. Like you, I've enjoyed PF1 as my D&D game of choice. I have also gained a lot of respect for Paizo's design staff. They've done some cool things and they have demonstrated a willingness to make changes based on feedback. The unChained Rogue is a fantastic piece of art, imo. So I want to leverage that emotional investment and help them to make the game better from my perspective. But that won't happen if I don't post...if you don't post. If we give up, it won't get better.

I also agree with something someone said up-thread. This is just Core. Consider that the Core animal companion for a Ranger is wholly unsuitable for combat. It's almost entirely worthless. If you don't give it Boon Companion(from a Splat), you basically can't bring it anywhere there is combat/AoE damage. So to be "fair," we need to give the product a year or two. But as I said, if we don't' give feedback, that's going to dramatically lower the chance our concerns are addressed.

Quote:
I'm just grateful to Paizo for publishing PF1 10+ years ago as it's brought me numerous hours of enjoyment these past several years.

I am too. I'd like to think I'm repaying that debt by telling them what will get me (and I bleieve others) to play PF2 and PF3 when it comes. Obviously I can't make them listen or agree...but in the absence of hope, you have despair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like they balanced animal companions to only take up one feat in your build and then forgot that and made it take up most of your build instead.

But yeah: I am probably going to run my home games with classes gaining 1 class feat at levels where you also get a general feat and maybe an extra general feat at levels where they get ancestry feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I feel like they balanced animal companions to only take up one feat in your build and then forgot that and made it take up most of your build instead.

Before the Playtest, I suggested Paizo drop the AC from the Ranger altogether. Why? For a couple of reasons, but one is that I know it would have to be balanced in terms of the Druid and that was going to screw it up for the Ranger.

Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen. For the Druid, it makes sense for the Companion to dominate the build because, IMO, the Druid's power structure had to be divided up: Spells, Shape changing, Animal proxy (with an array of buffs spells). For the Ranger, its' a different problem, so Paizo's stuffing a square peg in a round hole.

I don't think Paizo is going to be able to fix this (assuming you agree there is a problem) as long as they need the Druid and Ranger companion to operate the same. It's like taking a tire designed for street driving and using it off-road. So I am focusing on things that I think are more likely to change.

Quote:
But yeah: I am probably going to run my home games with classes gaining 1 class feat at levels where you also get a general feat and maybe an extra general feat at levels where they get ancestry feats.

I would highly recommend trying it as designed before doing that. There's a chance that the lack of feats might actually make the class more rewarding. At least for me, I want to see if that's true.


N N 959 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I feel like they balanced animal companions to only take up one feat in your build and then forgot that and made it take up most of your build instead.

Before the Playtest, I suggested Paizo drop the AC from the Ranger altogether. Why? For a couple of reasons, but one is that I know it would have to be balanced in terms of the Druid and that was going to screw it up for the Ranger.

Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen. For the Druid, it makes sense for the Companion to dominate the build because, IMO, the Druid's power structure had to be divided up: Spells, Shape changing, Animal proxy (with an array of buffs spells). For the Ranger, its' a different problem, so Paizo's stuffing a square peg in a round hole.

I don't think Paizo is going to be able to fix this (assuming you agree there is a problem) as long as they need the Druid and Ranger companion to operate the same. It's like taking a tire designed for street driving and using it off-road. So I am focusing on things that I think are more likely to change.

Quote:
But yeah: I am probably going to run my home games with classes gaining 1 class feat at levels where you also get a general feat and maybe an extra general feat at levels where they get ancestry feats.
I would highly recommend trying it as designed before doing that. There's a chance that the lack of feats might actually make the class more rewarding. At least for me, I want to see if that's true.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that animal companions could have gotten every feat in the tree for the price of one or two feats (the second of which would grant the free move/attack w/o a command action) and the game will still be balanced just fine. Even if you take all of the animal companion feats, there are many occasions at higher levels where the ranger's third+ interactive attack will outperform the damage of their animal companion. If you think that the druid should require additional feats to make the AC viable, then the designers could have tied part of the AC's attack proficiency to the master's attack proficiency. The druid could then have to spend extra feats to "buy back" the difference. It is not that hard of a design problem, imo.

As for running the "base" game before home ruling: I already have done plenty of that with the playtest rules and I find the build bottleneck to be pretty rough even with all that play experience and theory crafting under my belt (building characters for friends or suggesting builds to people online).


I’ve not played yet, so important caveat, but I’ve written up a few characters with their anticipated builds through level 20 and I definitely feel the feat crunch. It does make me think having an extra buffer feat at level 11 would be very helpful, or maybe also an additional free first level any feat would give characters just that much more customization without a significant power creep.

I do feel like Adopted Ancestry - Human feat: Natural Ambition is going to be a super common in builds


N N 959 wrote:
Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen.

Maybe not a completely different set of rules, but the Wizard is able to pick up bonuses to their familiar that no other class can. So there's already precedent for one class getting better at a shared option than others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
As for running the "base" game before home ruling: I already have done plenty of that with the playtest rules and I find the build bottleneck to be pretty rough even with all that play experience and theory crafting under my belt (building characters for friends or suggesting builds to people online).

I got in some games during the Playtest as well and it was disappointing enough that I would not play PF2, at all, given the Playtest Ranger. I haven't purchased any books yet.

Paizo made some changes. Some that may have been in response to my suggestions (i.e. allow a Ranger to Hunt Prey on something they are tracking). So...I am going to try it. I want to try and at least get to lvl 8 in PFS. I'll make recommendations for fixes along the way and I'll see what happens. I've liked PF1 (and Paizo) enough that I feel compelled to try and help make this a better game for people who share my views.


Squiggit wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen.
Maybe not a completely different set of rules, but the Wizard is able to pick up bonuses to their familiar that no other class can. So there's already precedent for one class getting better at a shared option than others.

The Ranger does get more feats associated with the Companion than the Druid Eight for the Ranger and five for the Druid. The extra feats seem focused on maximizing the companion for combat:

Companion's Cry
Stealthy Companion
Masterful Companion

As I don't have the bandwidth or desire to focus on Companions for a Ranger, I've elected to just ignore that aspect of the class for now.


N N 959 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
As for running the "base" game before home ruling: I already have done plenty of that with the playtest rules and I find the build bottleneck to be pretty rough even with all that play experience and theory crafting under my belt (building characters for friends or suggesting builds to people online).

I got in some games during the Playtest as well and it was disappointing enough that I would not play PF2, at all, given the Playtest Ranger. I haven't purchased any books yet.

Paizo made some changes. Some that may have been in response to my suggestions (i.e. allow a Ranger to Hunt Prey on something they are tracking). So...I am going to try it. I want to try and at least get to lvl 8 in PFS. I'll make recommendations for fixes along the way and I'll see what happens. I've liked PF1 (and Paizo) enough that I feel compelled to try and help make this a better game for people who share my views.

I like a ton of stuff about 2E. I just think the game is tragically not as good as it might have been (for my purposes anyways). I will never play the base game at all if I can help it, but I do think a house ruled version of the game is going to be a great time (specifically, granting some kind of class feat at every level). I just am going to have to do a lot of the game balancing work myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I just think the game is tragically not as good as it might have been (for my purposes anyways).

I'm inclined to agree, but I going to subscribe to the notion that the Ranger is inherently harder to design and that it's going to take another iteration or two for Paizo to be in a position to leverage this design space.

Based on Michael Sayre's post and statements from Jason Bulhman, it would seem that Paizo's first step was to try and figure out what they wanted the Ranger to be. Unlike the Wizard of Fighter, Paizo went back to square one with the Ranger and tried to distill down the essence of the class for PF2. As someone remarked up post, they came away with "single target hunter." I wish Paizo had taken my advice and changed the name to Hunter or Slayer, instead of using Ranger and then saved "Ranger" for a class that was more on par with the traditional class. Similar to what they did with the Champion/Paladin.

I don't think it's a coincidence that people who talk about all the customizability of the class are using terms like "competent." Unwittingly, I think this is the bar Paizo has set for the Ranger, and its a very low bar.

I'm hoping that after six months or a year, Paizo wants to mature the design. Or, has more confidence in putting out a class that has less build options, but more thematically complete/contained. A class that, while it may not be what everyone wants, hits the nail on the head for what the majority of people have come to expect from this class. Doing something like that is easier with a baseline Ranger already available.

But most importantly, I am hoping to see Paizo change the paradigm. To repeat myself and others, the Ranger really has no domain in the game-space that it owns. That can be solved. With some minor tweaks and additions to environmental rules, the ability to track could be a tremendous gateway to all kinds of nominally useful modifiers/outcomes. It's totally under-leveraged. Admittedly, I don't think Paizo is primed for that type of change, or rather, I don't think there is enough pressure on them to make that type of change. Nor do I think they are necessarily going to concede or believe such a change is needed. Kind of like the PF1 core Rogue, it may take years before we get an updated Ranger.

But who knows. Maybe this iteration of the Ranger will somehow prove to be tremendously popular and effective in normative play.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Not enough Class Feat slots? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.