|
I'm thinking of remaking one of my first PFS characters in PF2. A dwarf fighter archer.
While the ability scores are now very easy to achieve (it was PAINFUL making a Dwarf Archer in PF1), I am not sure which class would suit an archer better in PF2.
The fighter archer in PF1 is very easy to build, you get a ton of feats that all make your archery ever more deadly and just build straight up.
Now that many of these former archery feats are "class feats", it kinda forces you to pick 1 class over the other and rely on dedications if you want to dip into another class for more feats.
So which class is better suited as the base for an archer build in PF2? Fighter or Ranger?
If your idea of an archer is someone with lots of feats that make you very deadly with the bow, and the fighting aspect is the defining element of the character, then the fighter is the better choice. Accuracy alone would almost sell it but the damage stuff all stacks on top of having the higher proficiency and you will be the best archer in the land by going fighter.
Ranger would be the better pick if the character concept is built up more around the idea of hunting with a bow, and craftily setting yourself before combat to win based on tactics, rather than by talent.
I haven't done the math myself, but I think with the Ranger's Flurry option and Hunted Shot I think it might make up for the Fighter's increase in proficiency, but only in a theoretical "I use all my actions to take shots" comparison sort of way.
But you shouldn't be far behind. The fighters main advantage is their +2 bonus to attack vs the fighter, and the ranger has more interesting options in my opinion.
|
Yes.
(They are both excellent choices.)
I would look at which class's non-Archery feats best matched my concept, and go with that one. Fighters will offer better "option B" combat feats (also "+2" as Claxon said), whereas Ranger has some other interesting paths you could take (Monster Hunter, Wild Empathy, Snare Specialist).
Actually I would look at all the Ranger feats, levels 1-20, and if nothing strikes you as interesting, settle for Fighter.
Good luck!
I wrestled with this a few weeks back. My situation was building a character for a 1-off for players who don’t know the PF2 rules.
For me Fighter won out because it is less complex. Archer Ranger competes only if you are spending the action to Hunt Prey. I feel that is fine if you invest in knowing the rules well. You also get ready access to all of the other Ranger features and class feats which are very themey and great.
But...For a new player, who just wants to be the cool guy with the bow, it is better to say “these are your numbers. Go have fun shooting things” rather than “ok so you want to open with Hunt Prey, then you can go ham with this special attack, you calculate multiple attack penalty different than anybody else at the table does, but if you don’t hunt prey you have a whole different way to calculate your multiple attack penalty...”
The characters and setting is in the Warcraft world, and the archer will be a high elven Ranger, so I made the character with the ancient elf ancestry option to take a multi class dedication, so I’ll have some Ranger theme that way, and I’ll have powerful and simple archery through Fighter.
Or is it a case of looks good on paper, but not useful in practice?
What gives you that impression? It's essentially +2 to your second attack in a round and +4 to any attacks after that. Those are significant boosts to your accuracy.
Neither class has enough useful archery feats to fill out all levels of your build. So you should consider what else you want to do with your character.
Ranger can be great at monster identification, use snares, have an anmial companion or support another martial on the party with shared Hunter's Edge (which is probably the best buff in the game, or close to it).
Fighter doesn't really have much to get besides the archery feat, making it ideal for multiclassing.
Flurry Ranger, compared to non-Fighter martials w/ same stats, is +0/+2/+4
Fighter is +2/+2/+2, which I prefer since that 3rd shot is less common and iffy vs. bosses.
The Ranger has to Hunt Prey, but w/ Hunted Shot catches up on action economy, and that might allow in later rounds for more 3rd or 4th shots than the Fighter would get. Yet that's a feat behind now and hopefully the enemies are dropping enough to Hunt Prey again.
IMO Point Blank Shot tilts the advantage back to Fighter as does the better Weapon Specialization later.
Double Shot & Triple Shot catch a Fighter up on rounds w/ all three actions to fire and Debilitating Shot is tremendous vs. bosses (where your later attacks are iffy anyway). Slow 1 w/ no save is a game-changer, especially vs. flying enemies.
Now if you want more of a switch hitter, then Ranger gets all those MAP bonuses w/ every weapon they use while the Fighter gets its proficiency advantage (relative to other martials) for non-bow weapons only at lower levels and the highest levels. So unless there's a Fighter feat you feel is necessary (or you want a reach weapon backup for AoOs), go w/ Ranger for more dimensions to your PC.
That's a good point I hadn't considered previously. The flurry ranger is actually the most competent at switch hitting. Because archery feats are no longer going to fill most of your build, you can actually grab a couple light weapons (and quick draw) and sink a few class feats into TWF and be successful.
I agree with Castilliano's assessment, and I also find it intriguing how different brains approach the problem. I'll list those numbers in a different way in case others, like me, prefer to see it written out with the actual attack values.
Assuming 1st level characters using a long or short bow with 18 Dex:
Fighter attacks at +9/+4/-1
Ranger attacks at +7/+4/+1 (assuming Flurry Hunter's Edge and assuming that Hunt Prey is active)
Damage is the other consideration. Fighter gets Point Blank Shot. When used with a shortbow, that's +2 damage nearly always. Accuracy is one thing, but credible damage on a hit is also important. Would you rather be hitting for 1d6 damage or 1d6+2?
Thinking long term, Multiclass Archetyping into whichever you didn't pick initially seems like a really good thing for archers. It'll take a while but you can have your cake and eat it too.
Another aspect that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the Precision Hunter's Edge. +1d8 damage is pretty nice. It only functions on the first successful hit, though.. But, I submit this for your consideration; a sort of striker/debuffer archer:
Ranger 1 with Precision Hunter's Edge and a Bird Animal Companion.
Turn 1 rotation:
[A] Hunt Prey against your target.
[A] Command Animal to Support. It flies up to 60 feet towards your target and supports.
[A] Strike against your hunted target.
If you hit, you'll do:
Weapon damage +1d8, plus 1d4 bleed and the Dazzled condition while the bleed lasts.
Dazzled is a pretty good condition. I can see a Ranger built this way going after a boss monster to put Dazzled and a decent hit on the boss each round. That would reduce the boss's damage output by 20% against the whole party. Dazzled would last at least until the end of the Boss's turn, at which point you can just shoot it again. Chances are Dazzled will last longer than 1 round to compensate for the fact that you're not guaranteed to hit each round. Does it do as much damage as a Flurry Ranger who can try to hit 3 or 4 times most rounds? Or as much as a Point Blank Fighter who is more accurate? No, probably not, and a good part of the appeal is lost against enemies who don't bleed, BUT... it's still a neat idea.
And, there's no particular reason why you can't take the Animal Companion with a Flurry Ranger, though Flurry really wants Hunted Shot so you're slowed down a bit getting that all online.
As a side note, I'm liking PF2's ability to have us wrestle with this question. Think of how broad the debate is getting.
It's not just "which class does the math favor?" It's "well Fighter is good in this way, Ranger is good in this way." It's also "Fighter has this other set of benefits based on the class, and Ranger has another set of benefits based on the class." MAN I'm loving this :)