paizo.com Recent Posts in Not enough Class Feat slots?paizo.com Recent Posts in Not enough Class Feat slots?2019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-19T22:45:08ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#932019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T22:17:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote> I just think the game is tragically not as good as it might have been (for my purposes anyways).</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <i>track</i> 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.</p>
<p>But who knows. Maybe this iteration of the Ranger will somehow prove to be tremendously popular and effective in normative play.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-15T22:17:22ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Excaliburproxyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#922019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T20:26:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote>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). </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.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...Excaliburproxy2019-08-15T20:26:04ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#912019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T18:43:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Squiggit wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen.</blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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:
<p>Companion's Cry
<br />
Stealthy Companion
<br />
Masterful Companion</p>
<p>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.</p>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....N N 9592019-08-15T18:43:09ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#902019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T18:35:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote>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). </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-15T18:35:05ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Squiggithttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#892019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T18:11:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>Really, there needs to be a completely different set of rules for the Ranger's companion. But that isn't going to happen.</blockquote><p>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.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.Squiggit2019-08-15T18:11:16ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Liegencehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#882019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-15T14:56:13Z<p>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.</p>
<p>I do feel like Adopted Ancestry - Human feat: Natural Ambition is going to be a super common in builds</p>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 buildsLiegence2019-08-15T14:56:13ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Excaliburproxyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#872019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T22:39:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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).</p>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...Excaliburproxy2019-08-14T22:39:36ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#862019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T22:09:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.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....N N 9592019-08-14T22:09:39ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Excaliburproxyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#852019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T21:45:00Z<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>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.Excaliburproxy2019-08-14T21:45:00ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#842019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T21:07:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Otha wrote:</div><blockquote> I admire your outlook even though I don't share it.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>...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...</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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."</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote> the ship has already sailed and my beating a dead horse would not be beneficial to anyone. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.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...N N 9592019-08-14T21:07:58ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Othahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#832019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T20:25:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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...
<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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....Otha2019-08-14T20:25:05ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#822019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T18:17:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Otha wrote:</div><blockquote>Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow... </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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?
<p>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.</p>
<p>I'm starting out with a shortbow and we'll see what happens when/if I get a composite longbow.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-14T18:17:49ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#812019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T18:07:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">lordcirth wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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 <i>even if you didn't satisfy the requirements</i>. The gem of this Style is Shield Slam and then Shield Master. Neither of those are available as part of the Ranger class.
<p>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.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-14T18:07:43ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Deadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#802019-09-16T06:59:58Z2019-08-14T17:47:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Otha wrote:</div><blockquote>Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow... </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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.Deadmanwalking2019-08-14T17:47:01ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Hsui (alias of tomas rosenberg)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#792019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T17:39:32Z<p>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.</p>
<p>Good luck and always have fun gaming</p>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 gamingHsui (alias of tomas rosenberg)2019-08-14T17:39:32ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?lordcirthhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#782019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T17:34:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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.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,...lordcirth2019-08-14T17:34:25ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Othahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#772019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T16:44:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>Seems to me that now there's literally no reason to use a longbow...
<p>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...</p>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...Otha2019-08-14T16:44:37ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#762019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T04:59:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Ok, shoot a bow at someone in melee. Oh, wait, you have to get Precise Shot for that?
</p>
Try grappling someone? Oh wait, you need Improved Grapple for that?
<br />
What about pushing someone backwards? Guess what you need?
<br />
The ability to move in, swing, and move away?
<br />
The minimum AC level you need to purchase to not die?
<br />
The requirement that every martial character has to be Power Attacking?</p>
<p>All of that is basic competence level PF2 assumes. </blockquote><p>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..
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-14T04:59:15ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Temperanshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#752019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T04:45:05Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>•••••••••••
<br />
But you are right PF2e does make 1st lv characters a lot more competent. And it's a great part of the system.</p>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.
***********...Temperans2019-08-14T04:45:05ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Cyounihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#742019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T04:18:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Temperans wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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. </p>
<p>(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)</p>
<p>PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations. </blockquote><p>Well yeah I agree the new weapon traits are excellent.
</p>
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.) </blockquote><p>Ok, shoot a bow at someone in melee. Oh, wait, you have to get Precise Shot for that?
</p>
Try grappling someone? Oh wait, you need Improved Grapple for that?
<br />
What about pushing someone backwards? Guess what you need?
<br />
The ability to move in, swing, and move away?
<br />
The minimum AC level you need to purchase to not die?
<br />
The requirement that every martial character has to be Power Attacking?</p>
<p>All of that is basic competence level PF2 assumes. </p>
<p>What is not assumed is that wizards learn how to use orc necksplitters with the same proficiency as staves.</p>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...Cyouni2019-08-14T04:18:38ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Temperanshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#732019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T03:48:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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. </p>
<p>(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)</p>
<p>PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations. </blockquote><p>Well yeah I agree the new weapon traits are excellent.
</p>
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.)</p>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...Temperans2019-08-14T03:48:21ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#722019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T03:16:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote>There are some elegant things they've done with PF2.</blockquote><p>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.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.graystone2019-08-14T03:16:16ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Cyounihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#712019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T02:38:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Otha wrote:</div><blockquote>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... </blockquote><p>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.
<p>(I'll also note that the 5-foot tall longbow is not generally the actual people people picture their characters with.)</p>
<p>PF2 is significantly different, in that feats are more options instead of required things to meet standardized math expectations.</p>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...Cyouni2019-08-14T02:38:11ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?Hsui (alias of tomas rosenberg)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#702019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T01:30:58Z<p>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</p>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 itemsHsui (alias of tomas rosenberg)2019-08-14T01:30:58ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not enough Class Feat slots?N N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pb3&page=2?Not-enough-Class-Feat-slots#692019-08-19T22:45:08Z2019-08-14T00:23:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Otha wrote:</div><blockquote> I must not be most people as they didn’t give me what I was hoping for. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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). </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>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...N N 9592019-08-14T00:23:29Z