There is no limit on how many times you can deal sneak attack damage. As long as they are flat footed, and you have the right weapon.
So hit twice, deal 2*1d4.
Hit 5 times (twin takedown + haste), deal 5*1d4.
Just keep in mind it gets harder to hit each attack. And twin takedown is 1/turn.
Sneak Attack from a Rogue (or Rogue MCD in this instance) always works if your attack meets the requirements, generally the right type of weapon & the opponent be flat-footed (and hopefully not having resistance/immunity to precision damage). Some options expand this, i.e. Magical Trickster, but these don't change the default.
So if you're using the proper weapons and your opponent is flat-footed (w/ no special defensive ability to allay that) the Sneak Attack should work no matter what feats you use to perform the Strikes. I think Rogue MCD for Sneak Attack is a solid addition to most warrior builds (though so are caster MCDs!)
Don't forget to look for the ranger flurrying feats that reduce MAP, and make sure you're using an agile weapon!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This technically works, but doesn't seem plausible in most situations:As the title says, can a Ranger with Rogue Dedication combine a Twin Takedown with Sneak Attack if the target (Hunted Prey) is flat-footed?
I'm using my Animal Companion(Cat) as its Support action to make the target flat-footed. Sneak Attack says if the target is flat-footed to get some Precision Damage and Twin Takedown allows me to use one action for two Strikes.
Is the above situation plausible?
- First, Twin Takedown only works against your marked target, so you need to spend an action to Hunt Prey first.
- Second, getting the Support Bonus from your Cat requires you to command your companion to provide this specific benefit, so there's another action lost (also note that your companion can't attack in any round it uses it's Support ability).
- Finally, the actual benefit from the cat only kicks in after you actually hit once, so the target is not automatically flat footed against your first attack (though, as long as you hit at least once per round, you can keep it permanently flat footed for the rest of the fight if it can't kill or avoid your companion).
I looked into this for my Rogue and finally concluded it wasn't worth the effort (plus the complication of needing a weapon in your offhand all the time): Any fight long enough for you spend all these actions is probably a fight where your cat is going to die.
Wouldn't it be much more effective to have a bear companion and actually flank with it while it's using its support ability? I don't see a rule stating that a supporting animal companion can't be used for flanking. That way, you'd get another d8 on top of sneak attack.
Becomes even easier to do once you get Side by Side at leve l2.
|
|
Wouldn't it be much more effective to have a bear companion and actually flank with it while it's using its support ability? I don't see a rule stating that a supporting animal companion can't be used for flanking. That way, you'd get another d8 on top of sneak attack.
Becomes even easier to do once you get Side by Side at leve l2.
The geography won't always allow for actual flanking (such as a pair of opponents with their backs to a wall), which is what makes the Cat bonus so nice: It just takes so many actions to get set up...
That being said, when I was looking into the Ranger Archetype for my rogue, the fact that I could get the Gang Up feat at level 6 instead of my second Ranger feat kinda put the final nail in that idea's coffin...
Now, I could see Rogue + Short Bow + Ranger Archetype + Cat Companion + Hunted Shot as a Ranged Sneak Attack build: Being possibly able to attack without moving makes a significant difference in the action economy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One think to note is any ranger worth their salt will already have their target marked before combat begins, except in situations in which the party is ambushed (and even then a lot of the time still)This technically works, but doesn't seem plausible in most situations:[list]As the title says, can a Ranger with Rogue Dedication combine a Twin Takedown with Sneak Attack if the target (Hunted Prey) is flat-footed?
I'm using my Animal Companion(Cat) as its Support action to make the target flat-footed. Sneak Attack says if the target is flat-footed to get some Precision Damage and Twin Takedown allows me to use one action for two Strikes.
Is the above situation plausible?
First, Twin Takedown only works against your marked target, so you need to spend an action to Hunt Prey first.
So far, most of the encounters our group has had have jumped right to combat, so pre-hunting hasn't been an option most of the time. Even when it is, that's only helpful for your first target of the fight (which might die before you even get to act, or you might not be able to reach in the first round as a melee character) and you are still taking two actions to set up your combo on the next target (and the one after that, and the one after that, etc.).
Same than Zapp and Taja. The only rounds I haven't marked a target with my melee Ranger were rounds where my previous target didn't die. Precombat marking has been rarely possible and never useful as my premarked target has always decided to roll low on initiative or go on the other side of the fight.
One think to note is any ranger worth their salt will already have their target marked before combat begins, except in situations in which the party is ambushed (and even then a lot of the time still)This technically works, but doesn't seem plausible in most situations:[list]As the title says, can a Ranger with Rogue Dedication combine a Twin Takedown with Sneak Attack if the target (Hunted Prey) is flat-footed?
I'm using my Animal Companion(Cat) as its Support action to make the target flat-footed. Sneak Attack says if the target is flat-footed to get some Precision Damage and Twin Takedown allows me to use one action for two Strikes.
Is the above situation plausible?
First, Twin Takedown only works against your marked target, so you need to spend an action to Hunt Prey first. So far, most of the encounters our group has had have jumped right to combat, so pre-hunting hasn't been an option most of the time. Even when it is, that's only helpful for your first target of the fight (which might die before you even get to act, or you might not be able to reach in the first round as a melee character) and you are still taking two actions to set up your combo on the next target (and the one after that, and the one after that, etc.).
You don't have to see an enemy to mark it. You just have to be tracking it. Any time you notice tracks, you can Mark Prey.
Expecting that you would always have a target premarket is definitely too optimistic. I haven't played a ranger much in 2E, yet, but I had a Sanctified Slayer inquisitor on 1E that had a fairly long career, and using studied target out of combat in 1E is pretty similar to using Hunt Prey out of combat in 2E. I found enough opportunities for it to matter that I had the option. Not nearly enough to assume it would be a factor in every combat encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The case of hunting prey while tracking them in exploration mode is explicit in the ability, and an Outwit ranger would use hunt prey to really focus on someone important during tense conversation or negotiation all the time for the skill bonuses.
The idea that hunt prey would never be usable before initative doesn't hold up.
Agreed. Encounter Mode and Initiative are not the same thing. Scouting out the enemy camp can be done in Encounter mode, with no Initiative being rolled until either you are noticed, or you try to Attack.
I think he meant to type exploration mode in his post, not encounter.
This is one of several reasons I like the Survey Wildlife feat. If you can spot the signs (and you probably can, as it will probably use a simple DC rather than level based example) you can attempt to Track the creature, make it your hunted target and get a chance to identify it before combat. If you have Swift Tracker it can save you upwards of 3 actions.
|
|
Using Hunt Prey (Core Rulebook pg. 168) before rolling initiative seems like something that falls somewhere between 'always' and 'never'. I'd guess doing it effectively for melee will be more 'miss' than 'hit' but this will vary a lot by campaign.
- Yes, you can 'hunt' something you are tracking through a dungeon, but what happens when you come upon an occupied room your prey traveled through but didn't stay in? Now you're in a fight without your prey and you'll need to spend an action to 'hunt' a new target.
- Technically speaking, 'hunting' a target from stealth breaks your stealth (anything action other than sneak / hide / step breaks stealth unless your GM decides otherwise). Even if you GM decides you can do this (which is reasonable but not guaranteed), rolling bad on your stealth check as you approach will probably start the fight early, which is never good if you are the only visible member of your party...
- By the time you act, your target might no longer be a good choice (no room to get into melee, too many potential opportunity attacks in your path, one of your allies is being swarmed by other monsters, etc...)
- And, of course, the classic 'you killed my prey before I got to act'
This is one of several reasons I like the Survey Wildlife feat.
Holy crap I hate this feat.
"Look around for signs of creatures" feels like a basic use of the Survival skill, or maybe Perception. Oh man that's bad.
Step 1 of Encounter Mode is Initiative... did you mean to say Encounter Mode and combat are not the same thing?
By pure RAW you are correct, but there are lots of instances to use Encounter Mode, where you are measuring distance in 5 foot squares, and where individual actions matter, but where you aren't engaged in any interaction with an enemy, so Initiative isn't really relevant.
Like say if you've finished an encounter, and are now searching the room of a dungeon. The specific squares you are moving through can be very important for setting off traps, or searching, but most groups aren't going to care about Initiative order until a fight breaks out.
It's really more of a hybrid between Encounter and Exploration that happens a lot, but isn't really specifically called out in the book.
Like for example:
Minor AoA Spoiler
However, due to my Ranger having the Terrain Stalker (Underbrush) and Terrain Stalker (Rubble) Feats (this Feat is PHENOMENAL by the way), and the Rogue having his Rogue stuff, it was necessary to track our movements and actions as we crept around the outside of the camp looking for the enemies.
Once we found them, I Hunted the most dangerous looking one, but we were able to settle things peacefully, so this particular Encounter never had an Initiative roll at all.
This is one of several reasons I like the Survey Wildlife feat.Holy crap I hate this feat.
"Look around for signs of creatures" feels like a basic use of the Survival skill, or maybe Perception. Oh man that's bad.
Not trying to say that the feat is good, but...
Survival and perception would let you see that the signs are there. The feat is needed in order to determine information about the creatures without actually seeing the creatures.
So with perception you could notice that there are some burn marks on the trees. With Survival you could know that the burn marks are from creatures rather than a wildfire. With Survey Wildlife you could learn that they are from Hellhounds and be eligible to make a Recall Knowledge check to gain knowledge about weaknesses and other fighting tips to use against Hellhounds.
You absolutely can use actions outside of encounters. You dont roll initiative when the players attempt a Ling Jump just because the Long jump has action Chevron. Hunt Prey is pretty clear, you can do it off sight or sound. If my player hears the mighty flapping of a rocs wings above the canopy, they can hunt that roc. Or should we roll initiative, have no actions taken for that round outside of the Ranger hunting and the Roc flying away and then drop out?
I mean a target can remain hunted an entire day.
If you hear the roc then you can roll initiative. Other characters will cast buffing spells, Barbarians will rage, it's a classical first round of encounter. But because it's not funny to start an encounter with an enemy that is still not visible, most GMs start the encounter when there is visual contact. I have personally tried both approach, and starting an encounter with clues but not direct contact proved to be clunky. So, even if it's illogical, I try to avoid as much as possible.
The fact that you won't have signs of your enemy before the fight quite often and the fact that even if you have signs the enemy you'll mark is not necessarily the one you'll attack make me consider that having your target marked prior to the fight is an exceptional situation, with 10% occurence at most. I play mostly PFS (it may have an impact).
By pure RAW you are correct, but there are lots of instances to use Encounter Mode, where you are measuring distance in 5 foot squares, and where individual actions matter, but where you aren't engaged in any interaction with an enemy, so Initiative isn't really relevant.Unless those situations are happening with exactly 1 character present, it sure seems to me like Initiative remains relevant.
Yes, ignoring it at those times isn't guaranteed to result in issues... but sticking to it is just as easy as not, and prevents the potential issues.
And in the case of your spoilered example, it is unclear whether the creatures besides your PCs involved were just standing still taking no actions or not, which makes it seem like they were in "haven't seen the PCs yet Stasis." Running the encounter in initiative order only would impact the outcome if initiative wasn't the only part of the rules being ignored.
Right. They hadn't seen us. Because of the Stealth that I mentioned. They were just hunkered down waiting.
Anytime you arent surprised by the enemy you should have hunted them, or tried to.
GMsnot giving the relevant information needed to hint might require prompting from a ranger player, but these sorts of environmental descriptions heighten the game regardless.
But the one you hunt is not the one you fight. Hunting in a dungeon means that there's one enemy in the whole dungeon that is marked. If there are 5 combats in the dungeon, you have 20% chance to meet the enemy at the next encounter. And then it must be the enemy you attack, as he could be hidden, dead, or at the other side of the room with his bow.
And it's also considering there are neither civilians, allies or external creatures that went inside the dungeon recently.Most of the time you hunt air.
Pre-written scenarios, with a tight word count, not including provisions for things like tracking or the effect of traveling at half speed to use exploration tactics does not, in any way, mean that those mechanics don't matter in PF2 as a whole. The applicatiom of certain tactics in a PFS scenario requiring GM fiat doesn't even mean those mechanics don't matter in PFS, as you are free to make judgements about how to handle all if the things not written in the scenario when you run a PFS game.
It doesn't mean it will always work the way you want, but it doesn't mean it never will, either.
Pre-written scenarios, with a tight word count, not including provisions for things like tracking or the effect of traveling at half speed to use exploration tactics does not, in any way, mean that those mechanics don't matter in PF2 as a whole.It absolutely matters. It 100% maters that feats are written/implemented in a manner such that normative game play renders them useless. It's even worse when that normative game play is being determined by the same company.
Refusing to acknowledge that is how the problem arises in the first place.
Defining "normative game play" as a PFS scenario run without using the amount if freedom that you have as a GM, even with Organized Play restrictions is an assumption that does not have a solid base.
Defining "normative game play" as a PFS scenario run without using the amount if freedom that you have as a GM, even with Organized Play restrictions is an assumption that does not have a solid base.
Then your argument is to just wait and hope the GM is willing to insert new features specifically for the ranger's benefit, which is exactly what N N 959 was talking about when they said the options were unreliable because the written material almost never accounts for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then your argument is to just wait and hope the GM is willing to insert new features specifically for the ranger's benefit, which is exactly what N N 959 was talking about when they said the options were unreliable because the written material almost never accounts for it.
Defining "normative game play" as a PFS scenario run without using the amount if freedom that you have as a GM, even with Organized Play restrictions is an assumption that does not have a solid base.
Wait for them to insert things? No. When I'm running a PFS scenario, I'm not going to look around and say "oh, you're a ranger. Do you want to search for animal tracks before you go further down the road? Do you want to use your Survey Wildlife feat?"
I'm going to ask "Ok, so you head off down the road toward (insert destination). Tell me about how you're traveling." and if you tell me that you're checking off around the trail periodically, looking for signs of creatures in the area, so that you can use your Survey Wildlife feat, then I absolutely not going to say something like "The scenario doesn't say what happens if you look for tracks, so we're moving on to the encounter," I'm going to tell you what you find. While you don't invent new house rules and mechanics, accounting for player actions is a fundamental part of what you do as a GM.
In a home game, the idea of not allowing players to try to use their abilities is even more alien. It doesn't mean that every time you try it, there will be tracks of something that you care about later (unless you follow the tracks you find of course, intending to find that creature), but of course you can look.
Which is great. You sound like a wonderful GM.
But I don't think it's unfair or disingenuous for N N 959 to point out that that relies entirely on you being willing to accommodate them and that a lot of GMs will be presented with material and run the material without that degree of editorialization.
It's not that it can't happen, but that it's incongruous to act like something is perfectly reliable like a lot of people in this thread are when it clearly isn't. You only have to look a few posts up and see SuperBidi talking about intentionally putting bogus tracks around just to make the Ranger less likely to be useful to see that there's clearly not some consistent measure here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not all that incongruous,it's part of the same coin.
1. If there are relevant tracks around, you could find them.
2. If you're looking for tracks where a lot of other tracks would be, you'll find those, too.
1 and 2 don't conflict. And they both lead toward a position where you should sometimes be able to Hunt Prey on a creature before you encounter it, but won't always have the prey you want selected in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question that exploration mode primarily runs off of isn't "what is your selected exploration tactic?" it's "tell me what you're doing." If you express that your plan is to take a 10 minute break in your travel and do a more comprehensive survey of the area with the feat at given intervals, or if you find something out of the ordinary, then that can be worked with.
No, it won't help you if you find wolf tracks off the road, and your next combat encounter is with humans that you ignored because signs of humans riding horses on the road weren't suspicious.
You're failing to grasp that with a lot of the Ranger-themed abilities, there is no normative case (intrinsic value) where the abilities provide any substantive benefit. You want to SW in some random area? Great...it works. But so what, the next combat encounter is a day's journey away. Or won't happen until you enter a old lodge, or is an ambush of humans.
I'm not failing to understand this. I am flatly denying that it's a problem in the way you claim it is. You know when you can look for tracks (whenever you've got the time). You don't need to know for sure that what you find signs of in the area will be the thing you encounter later in advance. With regard to using it to Hunt Prey in advance, it's a bonus when you do get that extra action economy. Not a necessity that you lose when you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of several reasons I like the Survey Wildlife feat. If you can spot the signs (and you probably can, as it will probably use a simple DC rather than level based example) you can attempt to Track the creature, make it your hunted target and get a chance to identify it before combat. If you have Swift Tracker it can save you upwards of 3 actions.I'm afraid our honeymoon on agreeing about Rangers is sadly at an end (I am being sincere).
IMO, this is worthless Skill Feat. In none of the scenarios I've played, would this have been of any use whatsoever. The fundamental problem with this ability and nearly every ability in the Ranger arsenal or scope of things thematically appropriate for the Ranger, is that it has no intrinsic value i.e. it requires GM fiat to be of any use.
SW only works in the "wilderness." It relies on "nests, scat, and marks on vegetation." It takes 10 minutes, so you have stop and decide, "Hey, here I'm expecting a combat encounter." And it compels a Recall Knowledge check at -2, which kills Monster Hunter before you even get into combat. Ask me how many times a creature in the wilderness area was the creature in the next encounter?
I recall that during the Playtest, this came up and Mark S talked about it. I had gotten the impression that this was going to be fixed/modified so that it was generally useful, like in any setting. What Paizo did was remove the restriction to"animals." But so what? The only time you'd think to check for creatures is at a door or entrance. And when you're in the "wilderness" you'd be surprised at how few doors show up.
There is essentially no normative state where you're using this ability. I've done several outdoor adventures and the encounters happen an arbitrary points along a road. There's no opportunity to stop and say, "Hey, I think I should survey for the next encounter!" And what if you did? So you learn that some creatures are nearby. You fail your RK check and now what?...
Actually, I think I you and I have more common ground on this than you think. I agree with this in so far as the feat is extremely vaguely written and that under the wrong GM is it pretty worthless. I think where you and I diverge is that I'm coming at it from the perspective of a GM who has been running a wilderness adventure for a couple years now. I've thought a lot about the feat and how it should actually work in practice, in much the same way Hammerjack describes, and I guess I took for granted other GMs would do the same.
IMO, this is one of several skill feats that deserves more editorial direction on how it works in practice. The APs I've read so far don't do a great job of accounting for them. It is the sort of thing it would be nice if the GMG got into, but is probably too niche for the print space. I bet this would be a fun topic of discussion on Arcane Mark, though. Maybe I'll message Mark Seifter about it. Maybe he and Linda already have some relevant past episodes I've missed.
I'm gonna dissect the feat and try to explain my thinking on it. This probably won't be helpful for your PFS experience, but maybe the conversation could be useful if you have a home GM who should keep it in mind?
Disclaimer up top that this is how I use the feat, and your mileage may vary.
You can study details in the wilderness to determine the presence of nearby creatures. You can study details in the wilderness to determine the presence of nearby creatures. You can spend 10 minutes assessing the area around you to find out what creatures are nearby, based on nests, scat, and marks on vegetation.
You highlight that this feat only works in the "wilderness," which is a fair reading. I'm inclined to think the term wilderness includes situations where you can find things like scat or nests ahead of time. If a bunch of gugs have moved into an old temple, and are pooping in or around it, shedding, and doing other gug things, I'm inclined to let you Survey them.
The other big issue which you correctly highlight is how close is "nearby." IMO, if there isn't a compelling reason why the party can't be stopping periodically to Survey, then I'm inclined to say the party should get a Survey roll about as often as there are encounters while overland traveling. Assuming the party will choose to do once they happen to enter the territory of the creature is admittedly a concession to smooth play, but it is a good one. I do the same thing with traps: have the party roll perception once and carry that roll over until there's something relevant they can find, rather than make them roll anew every time they open a door.
This gives the player a chance to ID most upcoming encounters, which is quite potent, but they have to succeed at both the survival check and the Recall Knowledge check, which isn't a given. (I think on a failure of the Recall Knowledge check players should get some vague clues like a clawed predator is about, but probably nothing more actionable than Tracking it or characters using Defend exploration tactics.)
Attempt a Survival check against a DC determined by the GM based on how obvious the signs are. What the heck should that DC be? Something else that could use guidance, and probably some Simple DC examples like other skill actions have. I try to use the "Track" simple DCs as a guideline, unless the creature would be concealing its presence with Survival, at which point I use the Survival DC.
And what's really funny? The Playtest version at least allowed you to start "tracking" those creatures so you'd have a chance apply Hunt Prey. But this version doesn't. You can't use Hunt Prey off of Survey Wildlife. So I ask, how is this feat actually useful other than a low probability of getting RK success...which really does nothing for you?
You're right that the feat not letting you Track a creature is a problem, and that line being omitted can certainly imply it doesn't. But I'd throw my rulebook at a GM who said I couldn't. If I find scat from a creature, it has passed through this area and I should have the opportunity to Track it. That's just commonsense and they probably decided it didn't need to be explicitly enabled by the feat, but the omission raises a red flag if you are familiar with the playtest version.
I've played two wilderness (caravan escort) adventures and suggesting that a GM would allow one PC would stop the caravan and take 10 minutes survey's with any regularity to get a benefit from SW is simply disingenuous.
Nonsense. Players determine their own traveling precautions. That's been the case in the scenarios I've run, and in others I've played. There's nothing about making periodic wildlife surveys that would be an exception. If you've been playing with people that declare that it's impossible to attempt things that your characters are capable of, with no special circumstances to make them impractical, that's a problem with the people you're playing with, not something baked into the system.
No, you're trying it pretend that there is a normative case where the ability is useful and using that as a basis for saying there isn't a problem. You haven't provided any credible example where a PC benefits from SW via normal game play, but you're trying to insist there is one.
You keep using this phrase "normal game play" in ways that make no sense and seem to assume a bizarrely adversarial GM mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Survival and perception would let you see that the signs are there. The feat is needed in order to determine information about the creatures without actually seeing the creatures.
Yeah, but that's my concern, because they don't strike me as things that should require a feat to do. As written, the feat lets you:
[assess] the area around you to find out what creatures are nearby, based on nests, scat, and marks on vegetation
and it lets you:
attempt a Recall Knowledge check with a –2 penalty to learn more about the creatures just from these signs.
The fact that the feat specifically enables these two things, means that you can't otherwise do them without that feat.
No matter how perceptive or survivalistic you are, you cannot spend some time looking for signs of nearby life without this feat.
No matter how knowledgeable you are about the subject, you can't tell the difference between a roc's nest and a rabbit warren, because you need this feat to even be eligible to make that knowledge check. No "Can I roll Nature to see if I can identify what sort of animal left markings like these?"
The obvious counter-answer is that, wow holy crap of course you should be able to do those things it'd be dumb to tell someone they can't do that... which is reasonable, but also guts the feat. Which is probably for the best.