Help create a spell casting ranger.


Advice


I am reluctantly being pulled into PF2 by the rest of my group. (not everyone is enthusiastic about it, but GM and other players are). I don't want to make this thread about the many things I have seen (or don't see) about this new edition, but instead am asking for help in using the rules within it to create a character I would enjoy playing.

That would be the iconic ranger of old (not the dwarven cave diver that PF tries to portray as "iconic"). Something like Aragorn/Strider to some degree, that was supposedly the model of 1st Edition AD&D ranger. That ranger would of course be good with weapons, not be hampered by most armor, excellent in the wilderness, a foe of monsters/humanoids that prey on the civilized races, and able to cast several handy spells.

I am not looking for a ranger that has animal companions. Not my thing. Also do not want to be a dual-weapon wielder.

In PF2 my best ranger character was modeled after TreantMonk's switch hitter that was good with a bow, and was a very good great sword wielder. And with 14 wisdom and 3rd level spells, was able to pitch in that way, too.

I don't know if anything close to that kind of build is possible in PF2, but I am hoping that someone that reads this has a far better understanding of the rules that I do, and has some ideas they will share.

I understand that there is no multi-classing as we knew it before. Are we limited to taking only one arch-type from another class? (guessing so). If not, it might be interesting to try a ranger that could dabble in both arcane and druid (primal) spells. Otherwise, I haven't decided if a ranger that could cast arcane or one that could cast primal spells would be best. For that matter, may as well include cleric as a possible arch-type...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not limited to taking one archetype, but you have to take three total feats within an archetype to exit it.

The easiest way to get a spellcasting ranger is to take a Spellcasting dedication at 2 and the Basic Spellcasting archetype at 4. This gives you first level spells at 4, pretty comparable to the PF1 ranger.

In order to qualify for a dedication, you need 14 in the appropriate mental stat: Int for Wizard, Wis for Druid, Cha for Sorcerer. Sorcerers can be arcane or primal (or occult or divine) in this edition.

The ranger has no innate support for two handed weapons (their feats are all aimed at archery, crossbows or TWF), but class feats aren't strictly required to build a functional character.

I'd advise against a switch-hitter, though. Carrying two magic items is going to get expensive. Moreover, the 3-action economy makes it easier to move and fight and AoOs are rarer.

A shortbow or crossbow ranger can fight pretty effectively at a variety of ranges without much issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can have a switch hitter by using quick draw and can cut off the costs a little using the shifting rune.

How I would make.

Ranger Precision Edge
1: Hunted Shot
2: Druid dedication
4: Quick Draw
6: Basic Druid Spellcasting
8: Free
9: Multitalented Wizard
10: Basic Wizard Spellcasting
12: Expert Druid Spellcasting
14: Expert Wizard Spellcasting
16: Free
18: Free
20: Free

Get Multitalented with adopted ancestry if not human, this will give spellcasting to lvl 6 Primal and Arcane, the wilderness aspect you can get with skill feats like Forager, Survey Wildlife and increasing Survival.

The Precision edge alone makes you competitive in physical damage and Hunted shot let you be great with bows.


Dakota_Strider wrote:

*** instead am asking for help in using the rules within it to create a character I would enjoy playing.

That would be the iconic ranger of old *** Something like Aragorn/Strider to some degree, that was supposedly the model of 1st Edition AD&D ranger.

As someone who holds the 1e AD&D Ranger as the paragon of what a Ranger should be, let me give you some advice: It's dead, Jim.

Paizo has officially decided that the 1e AD&D Ranger is not what people want to play. Despite an overwhelming number of people who said that the Ranger should have spell options, they insisted some survey (executed before the Playtest) indicated that people wanted a spell-less Ranger. Amazing how that worked out considering that they also got rid of all half-casters (but I'm sure there is no connection).

So rather than be frustrated that you can't play what you want, I recommend abandoning that reasonable expectation, and play what they give you and see if you like it. I think you're likely to be much happier going in with zero expectations than to spend level after level chasing the white rabbit.

And while we are setting expectations, in this version of Pathfinder, they've dramatically nerfed the agency of the Ranger. You're not going to be able to do half of what you did in PF1. Not in combat, or out of it, so that's just how it is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Rangers can make mean switch hitters by utilizing Thrown weapons.

due to being able to double the base range and simultaneously hit on 2nd increment without penalties, they can get pretty great base range on thrown weapons (80ft without penalties is higher than, say a fighter with a shortbow), and pf2 actually makes throwing viable with how the Returning rune works (and it's also pretty early to get one)

As for being "like all iconic rangers, but also with spells", just grab a casting MC, and a couple of surival based skill feats.


I personally love the new Ranger. I never saw why the ranger had to have spells. Obviously a Ranger with the Druid Dedication works great too if that's what you want. I'm personally looking forward to trying other spell lists as well for some interesting characters.


Kyrone wrote:


How I would make.

Ranger Precision Edge
1: Hunted Shot
2: Druid dedication
4: Quick Draw
6: Basic Druid Spellcasting
8: Free
9: Multitalented Wizard
10: Basic Wizard Spellcasting
12: Expert Druid Spellcasting
14: Expert Wizard Spellcasting
16: Free
18: Free
20: Free

Interesting.

Quote:

The Precision edge alone makes you competitive in physical damage and Hunted shot let you be great with bows.

What is the official (or even your) definition of "competitive" and "great"? I see these qualifiers thrown out a lot and curious as to people feel justified in using them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:

The Precision edge alone makes you competitive in physical damage and Hunted shot let you be great with bows.

What is the official (or even your) definition of "competitive" and "great"? I see these qualifiers thrown out a lot and curious as to people feel justified in using them.

I assume they're going off of Citricking's analysis of expected damage by level comparisons, which can be found here. For spending one action, Precision bow Ranger seems to be the best damage dealer bar none. It starts to fall off as you spend more actions to shoot arrows, but considering the OP is hoping to make a spellcaster anyway they'll probably just be using those other two actions to cast spells.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I get that you have strong feelings about the 2e version of the class and I do too but I don't think coming into a thread asking for build advice and just complaining is really gonna help the OP.


Samdroid wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:

The Precision edge alone makes you competitive in physical damage and Hunted shot let you be great with bows.

What is the official (or even your) definition of "competitive" and "great"? I see these qualifiers thrown out a lot and curious as to people feel justified in using them.
I assume they're going off of Citricking's analysis of expected damage by level comparisons, which can be found here. For spending one action, Precision bow Ranger seems to be the best damage dealer bar none. It starts to fall off as you spend more actions to shoot arrows, but considering the OP is hoping to make a spellcaster anyway they'll probably just be using those other two actions to cast spells.

Okay, thank for the explanation But wow...that analysis isn't remotely predictive of actual in-game outcomes. Even if we were to accept it as correlated, you're artificially limiting the comparison to One Action strikes. This means you're not comparing it to Double Slice or anything else that takes 2 actions, but would be the primary attack option for other martial classes. Once we get into Two Action Strikes, the 2 Action Fighter is double the damage of the 3 Action, Precision Ranger. Is "competitive" really the correct description? Is scoring half as many points or runs in an actual game still leave a team in the "competitive" category?

Quote:
For spending one action, Precision bow Ranger seems to be the best damage dealer bar none.

Except other martials aren't limited to one action.

Quote:
...but considering the OP is hoping to make a spellcaster anyway they'll probably just be using those other two actions to cast spells.

Again, even if we except the faulty premise that this build is frequently using two actions on spell casting. That doesn't make Precision any more "competitive." It might make it the best option for a build limited to one action every round, but I'm not sure I'd call Precision "competitive????"

The main problem with Precision as compared to Flurry (which isn't even remotely addressed in the spreadsheet) is that the damage doesn't scale. Not until 11th level does it increase. So for the first 10 levels, the hit points of the monsters is increasing, but the Precision damage is fixed and thus becomes a smaller and smaller % of the total hit points a creature might have. Contrast that with Flurry (which does work on things immune to Precision damage and crits) and Flurry's value is constant.

For example, at level 10, you might be facing an Adult White Dragon with 215 HPs. Suddenly that extra 1d8 isn't quite as useful as it was against a 23 HP orc warrior at level 1.

I'd hate to think one spreadsheet (not even trying to answer this question) is sufficient to start making definitive claims.


Squiggit wrote:
I get that you have strong feelings about the 2e version of the class and I do too but I don't think coming into a thread asking for build advice and just complaining is really gonna help the OP.

I assume you're talking to me? I think reseting expectations is far more helpful than throwing out builds that will never replicate what he had in PF1 or 1e AD&D. YMMV.

The biggest hurdle I had resulted from Paizo telling us we should expect to tell the same stories as PF1. If Paizo had come out and said, "Hey, we scrapped the old Ranger and have this new thing. The old Ranger is dead, we just can't duplicate it, but we think this new one works well," I would have approached the Playtest with a much different attitude.

Dakota_strider wrote:
I am reluctantly being pulled into PF2 by the rest of my group..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dakota_Strider wrote:

...That ranger would of course be good with weapons, not be hampered by most armor, excellent in the wilderness, a foe of monsters/humanoids that prey on the civilized races, and able to cast several handy spells.

I am not looking for a ranger that has animal companions. Not my thing. Also do not want to be a dual-weapon wielder.

In PF2 my best ranger character was modeled after TreantMonk's switch hitter that was good with a bow, and was a very good great sword wielder. And with 14 wisdom and 3rd level spells, was able to pitch in that way, too.

I don't know if anything close to that kind of build is possible in PF2, but I am hoping that someone that reads this has a far better understanding of the rules that I do, and has some ideas they will share.

...

Otherwise, I haven't decided if a ranger that could cast arcane or one that could cast primal spells would be best. For that matter, may as well include cleric as a possible arch-type...

(edited out a few things I'm not responding to)

First, multiclassing to two casters means that is basically ALL you are going to do. You will lack the martial specialization of any other class. Second, the build I suggest is an arcane/primal Theurge. If you decide you have ENOUGH casting, then just ditch the later feats and requirements.

Okay, Kyrone posted a decent build there, but here:

Ancestry: Not Halfling or Gnome. I recommend Human, preferably Half-Elf but maybe Versatile.
Dwarf
Str 12, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 8
Elf
Str 12, Dex 18, Con 10, Int 14, (Wis and Cha: one gets 10, one gets 12. Replace all Druid feats with primal sorcerer if you go for Cha.)
Human
Str 14, Dex 18, Con 10, (12/14/10 for mental)
Goblin
Str 14, Dex 18, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 14
The goblin doesn't have the Wis to be a Druid, but it does have the Cha to be a Primal Sorcerer.

At level-up 5, boost Str/Dex/Con/one mental stat. For non-goblins, boost the 12 mental stat first. Goblins, may want Wis first to patch their Will save.
10: Str/Dex/Con/one mental casting
15: Str/Dex/Con/other mental casting
20: Human and Goblin, Str/Dex/Con, whichever mental stat you get the most important stuff from. Elf and Dwarf, take one of each mental casting stat instead of Str.

Background: Anything that isn't +2 cha/+2 free. Since everything has a choice between two ability scores, you just need to shuttle your other free boosts to get these builds. If one of them looks CLOSE to what you want, you can easily shuttle some things around, like losing a little Dex for a better Str.

Bounty Hunter, Hunter, Guard, Scout, or Warrior would be in line with Ranger, I feel. Especially Bounty Hunter and Scout; their skill rank changes to Free.

Class: Ranger, obviously.

Skills: Make sure to have Nature and Arcana at Master before the Expert casting, and Legendary before the Master casting.

Feats
As the mental abilities could support some sorcerous builds, I refer to the 14 mental stat as Caster 1 and the 12 as Caster 2. For Goblins, either order. Elves are locked to Wizard -> Primal; Dwarves to Primal -> Wizard
If you are not playing as human, you'll want Adopted Ancestry to get Multitalented. You will also want Toughness for your low Con, to go into melee.

Feats at 12,14,16 can be moved around. Skill feats are all free.
1) Hunted Shot
2) Caster 1 Dedication
3 General) Adopted Ancestry (unless Human)
4) Caster 1 Basic Casting
6) free. Honestly, I don't like any of the level 6 feats for this build. Skirmish Strike could give you a bit of melee + casting, though. Swift Tracker means your ONLY good skills would be Arcana/Nature/Survival, and requires a bit of juggling to make it work, but it does work. Snap Shot really wants Disrupt Prey, but you just don't have the open feats. Maybe take Far Shot or Scout's Warning instead.
8) Caster 1 Breadth
9 Ancestry) Multitalented for Caster 2 Dedication
10) Caster 2 Basic Casting
12) Caster 1 Expert Casting
14) Caster 2 Expert Casting or Breadth
16) Caster 2 Breadth or Expert Casting
18, 20) Master Casting, either order

Half-Elf works best because you have the second-best Con and can swipe better Movement from the Elf feats.

For the record, at this time I think having only ONE casting tradition would be better; Fighter or Champion would make better eldritch knight theurges, or a Cleric/Druid chassis for theurgy.

I also think maybe a Storm Druid chassis would be better for this build, then snag some arcane power later.

Also, yeah, this build doesn't do melee well until 5 at least. Elf and Dwarf, wait until 10 for decent damage. I recommend Finesse weapons at all times. Focus on the archery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note, please: I don't think an Arcane/Primal hybrid would reclaim the feel of the Ranger of old. For that, just truncate at Expert in Primal (sorcerer or druid) and maybe take Breadth. That said, hybridizing two caster dedications is a tricky build and you said you might be interested in trying it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good news you can make a character like that.

Bad news what Paizo means by ranger has changed.

In DnD 3 - PF1 a ranger was a martial class that had nature/survival abilities and some magic.

In PF2 the ranger got dissasmbled. A lot of the hunter type abilities got moved into survival skill feats accessable to anyone who invests in it and the magic got moved into druid multiclass archetype (read feat tree)

The PF2 ranger still has some built in survival abilities but their primary role is a character that excels at targeting a single enemy at a time. They are great vs big boss monsters.

So IMO to recreate a PF1 ranger who had no such single target focus abilities you probably want to play a fighter. To recreate the nature abilities focus on survival skill (starting with the Hunter background) and to gain some utility spells start taking druid archetype feats starting at level 2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll just toss out the idea of a Warpriest of Erastil. With either ranger or rogue dedication to boost your damage/skills a bit.

You are decent with a longbow, have some armor, and while not the more ranger-y spell list, you get some bonus nature spells like wall of thorns and tree strike, and can pick other thematic cleric spells like fairy fire, darkvision, wanderers guide, and freedom of movement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is your "Switch-Hitter/Caster" Ranger Chassis.

First I would decide which of the three sets of skills you want to excel at:

INT - Arcana, Crafting, Lore, Occultism, Society
WIS - Medicine, Nature, Religion, Survival
CHA - Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Performance

Now that you have chosen your mental stat, build your character.

16 ST
16 DX
12 CON
14 INT, WIS, or CHA
10 in other two mental stats

Class Feats
01 - Hunted Shot
02 - Multiclass Dedication into Wizard (if INT), Cleric or Druid (if WIS), Bard or Sorcerer (if CHA)
04 - Basic Spellcasting
06 - Quick Draw
08 -
10 -
12 - Expert Spellcasting
14 - Spellcasting Breadth

...

Finally, be optimistic. You may end up having more fun than you expect!


Dakota_Strider,
You mentioned having a DM who has pushed this decision upon half of the group. Although I understand their desire for a system change that lends itself to easier prep and closer optimization parameters, I also realize that in doing so, the half of the group accustomed to PF1 may feel as though something is being "taken away" - and rightfully so!

That said, you may have a bargaining chip. One poster created a houserule that increases the number of Class Feats characters get through leveling. And the selling point is thus: As the system itself no longer grants access to feats that increase character metrics outside of the established bounds, such a "more feats" houserule only allows horizontal expansion of character concept. The very kind of horizontally that was relocated from the Ranger class in the transition to skill feats and multiclass spellcaster dedication (as other posters mentioned above).

And I'm quite sure the more willing transitioners in your group would be easily onboarded to being allowed to select a couple extra feats too. And besides, I consider it likely that the upcoming DMG will officially sanction such a houserule in one form or another.

Here is that houserule.


I will agree that the D&D 3.5/PF1 ranger has been dissected and scattered across several classes. So if you want to resurrect it, you will have to gather the various pieces together again.

And so it depends on exactly what you are wanting from the original Ranger class.

For representing Aragorn, I would also go with fighter as the base class. Since I have never actually seen him actually casting a spell, I may just go with nature and survival skills and some appropriate skill feats. Most notably natural medicine.

The Ranger class in PF2 is more of a stalker/hunter type of character. Which was definitely a part of the old-school ranger. So if that is what you are looking for, definitely start with a Ranger base class.

If you do want to add some spellcasting, that is what multiclass dedication is for. Druid dedication would be the most obvious to get the PF1 ranger feel of spellcasting. Sorcerer dedication could get the same primal spell list. Other casting class dedications could give different spell lists - which could be cool depending on what you are going for.

-----------

Now, to get both arcane and primal spells, the only good way to do that is to start with one of them as the base class and multiclass into the other. Otherwise, you won't be able to get both until quite high level play.

Starting with Druid would probably be the best for getting the feel of a ranger type character. Druid doesn't have the best martial attack power, but it is probably better than sorcerer and wizard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rainzax wrote:
You mentioned having a DM who has pushed this decision upon half of the group. Although I understand their desire for a system change that lends itself to easier prep and closer optimization parameters, I also realize that in doing so, the half of the group accustomed to PF1 may feel as though something is being "taken away" - and rightfully so!

I strongly disagree. Sure, it's always best to come to a consensus around the gaming table. But if Bob is always the DM, while Fred, Max and Harry have mixed feelings about PF1 and PF2, at the end of the day it's up to Bob to decide what game he wants to run, whether it be PF2 or Bunnies and Badgers. If the other guys are keen to play but refuse to don the DM mantle, all they can do is accept Bob's decision or stay home and watch TV.

It would be different if several different people were willing to take on the DM role, and were proposing different games.

Coming back to the original question, as several people have posted above, using the multiclass dedication feats you can now create a ranger who starts getting some spells at 2nd level, far earlier than in PF1 (wasn't it 4th or 6th before a ranger started getting spells?). So not only can you make a spellcasting ranger, but you can do it with more panache than ever before!

And as others have noted, feel free to try to negociate with your DM. Tell him, "Sure, if you really want to play PF2, I'll consider it, but there are too few feats. Let us have an extra feat at 1st level (or whatever boon you decide to bargain for) and we'll try out your new game." But if he says no, either suck it up and accept his decision, or offer to put on the DM hat yourself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger spellcasting from 1st edition is very limited

all together they get 3rd level druid and 2nd level arcane spells(max at 17lvl)

you can literally make the same ranger(regarding abilities and spells) in PF2....the only thing hard to replicate is that random list of monster that 1st ed ranger have dmg bonus against....but precision edge bonus can replace that...

PF2 is so modular in character creation that you can really make any kind of fictional character very easily(aragorn too, although he never casts any real spells)

now...changing one's preference later in life(i doubt that you are a youngster mentioning 1st edition) and accepting change....that is a bit harder than making any kind of character in any system.


Wheldrake wrote:
rainzax wrote:
You mentioned having a DM who has pushed this decision upon half of the group. Although I understand their desire for a system change that lends itself to easier prep and closer optimization parameters, I also realize that in doing so, the half of the group accustomed to PF1 may feel as though something is being "taken away" - and rightfully so!
I strongly disagree. Sure, it's always best to come to a consensus around the gaming table. But if Bob is always the DM, while Fred, Max and Harry have mixed feelings about PF1 and PF2, at the end of the day it's up to Bob to decide what game he wants to run, whether it be PF2 or Bunnies and Badgers. If the other guys are keen to play but refuse to don the DM mantle, all they can do is accept Bob's decision or stay home and watch TV.

All I'm saying is that suddenly deciding to change the entire rule-system that underlies the story of a game - whether well-intentioned or not - is tantamount to changing the conditions of an agreement after both parties have agreed to it. And that, for those players who constitute the reluctant but sporting stake-holders in the transition, their feelings are legitimate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sure, their feelings are legitimate. But being a DM takes a lot of work. And if Bob the DM decides he doesn't want to DM PF1 any more, but would love to do PF2, that's also a legitimate feeling. It's not like the players can oblige him to DM a game he doesn't want to play. So the players can either accept Bob the DM's decision, not play at all, or accept to DM something else themselves and propose that option to their friends.

I've had to face this quandary myself recently, worrying that players in our current PF1 campaign would be miffed to abandon their existing characters and start new ones in PF2. I tried to poll my players as to which choice they would prefer. As it turns out, they were keen to try out the new game system too, so no problems. Seeking consent around the gaming table is always better than acting like a tinpot dictator, as some DMs I've known in the past have done.

None of this has to do with a spellcasting ranger, which I would argue is just as easy to create in PF2 as in PF1.


I think we agree that one player's feelings do not negate another player's feelings, regardless of who is "pulling more weight". Cool.

The one mini-gripe I have with Spellcasting Ranger - which is in part also a mini-gripe with how the MCD Archetype system treats Charisma based casters - is that outside of Wild Empathy, there is not yet a good reason to choose to prioritize Charisma.

I call this a "mini-gripe" because I believe that overall, the PF2 Ranger is in a pretty good place.

Also, Outwit...


To the OP, this has probably been said more than once but Ranger with Druid Multiclass Archetype is probably the closest to PF1 Ranger as Primal spell list seems the closest to Ranger spells (since many of them were Druid spells anyway) and they are Wis-based, which fits with typical stat focus for Rangers.

For switch-hitting, as long as you invest in keeping both a melee weapon and a bow up to snuff you can do it pretty well, Quick Draw is definitely important. I personally like the Flurry Edge, and it can give a nice contrast between your bow and melee weapon. Your bow can get more attacks (assuming you take the Hunted Shot feat) while the melee weapon, assuming you picked an Agile weapon like a Shortsword, suffers barely any Multiple Attack Penalty for repeated strikes.

Another idea, depending on exactly how you like to switch-hit, you could get a heavy crossbow and the crossbow ace feat to bump it to d12s for damage. Shoot off an opening attack with that then run in and switch to your blade.


I appreciate all of the feedback so far, and am still tinkering with builds. (I am going to have to break down and buy the book, trying to get all my info only from the PFD sites seem to leave some information gaps.)

shroudb mentioned that thrown weapons have double range for rangers? Still haven't found that rule, but if that is the case, I may change my mind about dual-wielding and instead of of switch hitting between a bow and a melee weapon, try using hatchets. They are agile, and can be thrown. Only problem I see is the range (10'). I did play a similar character almost 20 years ago in 3.0. I like hatchets for rangers, since they seem to match that class better than any other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rangers ignore the penalty for the first range increment against their Prey, which is effectively the same thing as doubling the range.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dakota_Strider wrote:

I appreciate all of the feedback so far, and am still tinkering with builds. (I am going to have to break down and buy the book, trying to get all my info only from the PFD sites seem to leave some information gaps.)

shroudb mentioned that thrown weapons have double range for rangers? Still haven't found that rule, but if that is the case, I may change my mind about dual-wielding and instead of of switch hitting between a bow and a melee weapon, try using hatchets. They are agile, and can be thrown. Only problem I see is the range (10'). I did play a similar character almost 20 years ago in 3.0. I like hatchets for rangers, since they seem to match that class better than any other.

Hunt lets you ignore penalties for the 1st increment.

and at level 4 you can get Far shot which doubles range increments.

so basically can be used with all ranged options, including thrown weapons (since even melee thrown have range increment) to up to 4x the original without penalties.

A hatchet has a 10ft increment, so you can hit at 40 without penalties.

But the kicker is that Light Hammer, which is almost identical to Hatchet (both are d6, agile, thrown), but instead of Sweep that the hatchet has, it has 20ft starting range.

So you can be swinging Light hammers at melee, or be throwing them at 80ft without penalties.

As a comparison, shortbow has 60ft range.

And a returning rune works amazing in PF2 since you can actually throw the same weapon multiple times per round. And it's cheap enough to have it on your weapon by level 4.

So, by level 4 you can be throwing at 4x the range AND get multiple attacks with the same magical weapon you'll be using for melee. It's like the perfect "switch hitter".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not yet comfortable enough with the PF2 rules to do it, but I really feel that truly emulating the AD&D 1st Edition Ranger within PF2 really necessitates creating a Variant Ranger class. To me, it's definitely homebrew territory, at this point.


You can even use Twin Takedown with Ranged melee weapon like the hatchet. Gotta say, this really makes me want to play a Ranger like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, I really like the Ranger in this edition, as compared to every other edition of D&D to date.

...

Bastard sword is also pretty good for Switch-hitter, because you can always fight one-handed with it if you want to Quickdraw and throw weapons in the same turn (Dart, Javelin), but return to two-handed wield when you close in on a stronger foe.

Maybe the APG will have some feat support for throwing and switch-hitting builds?

Rapid Throw
(Single Action or Double Action)
Pre-requisite: You have one or two hands free.
You Interact to draw one or two weapons with the thrown trait, and may Strike with one or two thrown weapons, taking your normal multiple attack penalty. This feat's action cost corresponds to the number strikes you make. For each strike that results in a critical hit, you may immediately Interact to draw another thrown weapon.

Stow and Draw
(Single Action)
You Interact to stow a one-handed or two-handed weapon. You Interact to draw a one-handed or two-handed weapon. If you have the Quickdraw feat, you may immediately strike with the weapon you just drew.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Help create a spell casting ranger. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.