Hunted Shot Clarification


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hunted Shot appears to be a single action that allows a range to take two quick shots, but multiple attack penalties apply. Does that mean that this only takes up one single action, the first strike is at no penalty, the second is at -5.

However does that mean the ranger then has two more single actions at -10 each?


Gray wrote:

Hunted Shot appears to be a single action that allows a range to take two quick shots, but multiple attack penalties apply. Does that mean that this only takes up one single action, the first strike is at no penalty, the second is at -5.

However does that mean the ranger then has two more single actions at -10 each?

Yes.


Which is why that feat meshes well with Hunter's Edge-Flurry.
Bring a lot of arrows.


Aratorin wrote:
Yes.

Thank you!


Castilliano wrote:

Which is why that feat meshes well with Hunter's Edge-Flurry.

Bring a lot of arrows.

Thanks for the pointer. I was going with Precision, but may go with Flurry instead. I'm not sure why I thought Flurry only pertained to two weapon fighting.


Gray wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Which is why that feat meshes well with Hunter's Edge-Flurry.

Bring a lot of arrows.
Thanks for the pointer. I was going with Precision, but may go with Flurry instead. I'm not sure why I thought Flurry only pertained to two weapon fighting.

Look at your average actions per round.

If you're only firing 2/round, then Precision likely is better.
So if you plan on moving around, casting Shield (via multiclass), commanding an animal, or fight a lot of minions so you're switching targets more often, then Precision makes your few shots count more.

But if behind a Champion & a shield Fighter, cranking out 3+ attack/round, go Flurry. Once your bow gets runes, this'll do more damage (and not struggle vs. those enemies immune to precision!).


Castilliano wrote:
Gray wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Which is why that feat meshes well with Hunter's Edge-Flurry.

Bring a lot of arrows.
Thanks for the pointer. I was going with Precision, but may go with Flurry instead. I'm not sure why I thought Flurry only pertained to two weapon fighting.

Look at your average actions per round.

If you're only firing 2/round, then Precision likely is better.
So if you plan on moving around, casting Shield (via multiclass), commanding an animal, or fight a lot of minions so you're switching targets more often, then Precision makes your few shots count more.

But if behind a Champion & a shield Fighter, cranking out 3+ attack/round, go Flurry. Once your bow gets runes, this'll do more damage (and not struggle vs. those enemies immune to precision!).

Thank you. It appears that we will have two strong front line fighters. I'll most likely be hanging back with the dedicated caster and trying to get off as many shots as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With 3 Attacks, Precision and Flurry Edge do around the same damage, with 4 attacks or more Flurry will get ahead, with 2 attacks or less Precision will do more.

Here a little chart.

And remember that enemies get some cover if your allies are in the front of your target, so you may need to move a little.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Flurry is real good.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Flurry is real good.

I have the opposite point of view: Precision is just always better than Flurry. Same damage for less actions.

Comparing 4-attack Flurry to 4-attack Precision is an invalid comparison as you are comparing an optimal Flurry to a non-optimal Precision (pilling on attacks at -10 MAP is bad strategy). So, while the Flurry Ranger is using lots of actions to just be on par in terms of damage with a Precision Ranger, the Precision Ranger has lots of actions available for alternate actions: Demoralize, Recall Knowledge, Cast a Spell, Warden's Boon, Battle Medicine.
And to have 4 attacks, the Flurry Ranger will need to not Hunt Prey, not move, not lose an action because of Stunned or Slowed, etc...
So, Flurry and Precision deals roughly the same amount of damage, but Precision does it in one action while Flurry eats all of your actions to do so.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I didn't say Precision was bad. Just that flurry is good. I didn't even say Flurry was the best.


Captain Morgan wrote:
I didn't say Precision was bad. Just that flurry is good. I didn't even say Flurry was the best.

Sorry, you're right. I have quoted you and it was a mistake. I should have quoted Kyrone. I unfortunately can't change my previous message.

Kyrone wrote:

With 3 Attacks, Precision and Flurry Edge do around the same damage, with 4 attacks or more Flurry will get ahead, with 2 attacks or less Precision will do more.

Here a little chart.

And remember that enemies get some cover if your allies are in the front of your target, so you may need to move a little.

What I wanted to point out is that you are using an ideal Flurry action sequence (Hunted Shot - Strike (- Strike)) and compare it to a suboptimal Precision action sequence (as a Precision Ranger never use Strike as there are far better damage dealing moves, for example Bear Companion Support Ability, Point Blank Shot, Warden's Boon).

If you compare an ideal Flurry action sequence to an ideal Precision action sequence, you'll realize that Precision outdamages Flurry for 1 and 2 actions and even sometimes for 3 actions.


I never actually said one was strictly better than another, just that for Flurry to outdamage Precision in a full strike scenario it needs to do 4 or more attacks, which being honest I find it an waste of the 3 action economy.

I personally like Flurry more for Combat Maneuvers than damage, where their MAP will be reduced as well, doing a grab with the hand free, then a trip with an agile weapon at only -2 and then can still attack at an -4 (-2 if you count flatfooted) is more interesting for me than only attacking.

At lower lvl with a bow it just feel horrible with Flurry, because you will only be rolling a d6 without any modifier and hitting and only doing 1-2 damage with it totally sucks.

The Exchange

Point out that the 3rd and 4th shot are at -6 not -10.

"Your multiple attack penalty for attacks against your hunted prey is –3 (–2 with an agile weapon) on your second attack of the turn instead of –5, and –6 (–4 with an agile weapon) on your third or subsequent attack of the turn, instead of –10."

Please let me know where it says the -3/-6 rule does not apply to arrow attacks (I know that the -2/-4 is not applicable since bows are not agile)

Silver Crusade

SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Flurry is real good.

I have the opposite point of view: Precision is just always better than Flurry. Same damage for less actions.

In terms of raw damage output a flurry ranger does more total damage a round than a precision archer. Not a lot more but more.

The damage output for flurry increases when you count overkill in. It increases if you manage to hit a weakness. It decreases if you hit a resistance. But, in general, you do more damage.

But you're quite right that you're doing that additional damage at the cost of your other actions. And whether that is a worthwhile trade off is up to you.


pauljathome wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Flurry is real good.

I have the opposite point of view: Precision is just always better than Flurry. Same damage for less actions.

In terms of raw damage output a flurry ranger does more total damage a round than a precision archer. Not a lot more but more.

The damage output for flurry increases when you count overkill in. It increases if you manage to hit a weakness. It decreases if you hit a resistance. But, in general, you do more damage.

But you're quite right that you're doing that additional damage at the cost of your other actions. And whether that is a worthwhile trade off is up to you.

The thing is: If you compare a Precision bow Ranger to a Flurry bow Ranger, the Precision Ranger will always outdamage the Flurry Ranger in whatever situation. If you only care about damage, it's very easy for a Precision Ranger to increase it's damage output (Animal Companion, Point Blank Shot, Warden's Boon) to the point of outdamaging a Flurry Ranger. Flurry Ranger, on the other hand, can't improve their damage output (Animal Companion doesn't work, Point-Blank Shot or Warden's Boon neither).

In realistic situations, Precision is a straight improvement over Flurry. Hence my point of view.

Horizon Hunters

Of course an Animal Companion works. You can either 1) have it attack twice for one Ranger Action, at 0 & -5, or 2) have it Support. While the differing animals have differing support effects, a bear adds 1d8 to every arrow. Precision only adds 1d8 to the first attack.

In general, with all three actions + Hunted Shot:
1- the Precision Bow Ranger makes attacks for 0/bow damage + 1d8, -5/bow damage, -10/bow damage, -10/bow damage.
2- the Flurry Bow Ranger makes attacks for 0/bow damage, -3/bow damage, -6/bow damage, -6/bow damage.

So the Precision guy gets a front loaded 1d8, but the Flurry guy is going to hit (and crit) more often. The less actions available due to movement, etc the less effect the Flurry advantage has.

In the end, which does better is going to vary from fight to fight (and the 1d8 is going to be less of an advantage as Striking Runes come on board).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
In realistic situations, Precision is a straight improvement over Flurry. Hence my point of view.

The fact that you're defending Precision over Flurry means that at least for some percentage of players, the choice represents a valid decision. I haven't seen many people try and defend Outwit.

The challenge with any comparison is context/circumstance. How often are creatures immune to Precision damage? How often will MAP come into play? As others have pointed out, Precision might work better for some play-styles vs others.

My issue with Precision is that the damage is fixed. Which means that as your weapon damage increased, the percentage benefit from Precision drops. You don't get 2d8 until lvl 11. So for 10 levels, you're getting the same benefit, but the creature hit points are increasing. So Precision would seem to contribute less and less as a percentage. Contrast that with Flurry where the PC's increase in proficiency means the benefit from Flurry remains constant.

Still, I think more important than the damage comparison is that Precision represents a different concept for the Ranger. Since a lot of how people view the class/character is tied up in the mechanics, PF2 is benefiting from a choice that supports a substantively different play-style. And as long as one isn't irrefutably better than the other, it serves its purpose.

Horizon Hunters

Absolutely. If you are trying for a Sniper build, Precision is the way to go.

As to Outwit... I was just about to ask if anyone has actually used this. I conceptually see it as something a melee Ranger might do if the setting is going to be urban with lots of intrigue. Then possibly MC to Rogue Scoundrel.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We just introduced an Outwit Ranger into my Age of Ashes campaign, and she's pretty dang optimizer for favouring skills over damage. She looks like she's gonna be extremely helpful in her Favored Terrain, but she hasn't really been tested yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anne Archer wrote:

Of course an Animal Companion works. You can either 1) have it attack twice for one Ranger Action, at 0 & -5, or 2) have it Support. While the differing animals have differing support effects, a bear adds 1d8 to every arrow. Precision only adds 1d8 to the first attack.

In general, with all three actions + Hunted Shot:
1- the Precision Bow Ranger makes attacks for 0/bow damage + 1d8, -5/bow damage, -10/bow damage, -10/bow damage.
2- the Flurry Bow Ranger makes attacks for 0/bow damage, -3/bow damage, -6/bow damage, -6/bow damage.

So the Precision guy gets a front loaded 1d8, but the Flurry guy is going to hit (and crit) more often. The less actions available due to movement, etc the less effect the Flurry advantage has.

In the end, which does better is going to vary from fight to fight (and the 1d8 is going to be less of an advantage as Striking Runes come on board).

Having played both, the Flurry Ranger does insane overkill damage to mooks, which just feels like a waste, and does pitiful damage to Bosses, as even with the lesser MAP, you still miss with all but your first attack most of the time. I switched to Precision at 5th and haven't looked back.


As written, Outwit is more appropriate for a Scout/Spy build, but in a kind of dysfunctional way.

Quote:
You are talented at outwitting and evading your prey

So the focus here, is avoiding your Prey, not fighting it, or tracking it. You get bonuses to Stealth and your AC, etc, but only against something you designate as your "prey." You only have 1 prey at lower levels. I have trouble understanding how this is suppose to work given nominal game play in PFS i.e. you explore and then fight.

In an Urban setting/Intrigue campaign, you can go around trying to deceive one creature at a time, but what happens if there are two guards? Or you know, you run into a gang leader AND his gang?

Quote:
Then possibly MC to Rogue Scoundrel

But shouldn't the class stand on its own? If you don't MC with Outwit, what exactly is Paizo expecting you to do with it? Keep in mind, that a Ranger's Attributes are STR and DEX. So you're not getting an 18 in CHR for all those Intimidation/Deception rolls. Nor will you have lots of stat bump for INT and those Recall K checks about your prey.

If I had to hazard a guess, this smells like some sort of concession to the Favored Enemy crowd from PF1.

PF1 CRB Favored Enemy wrote:
He gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting to identify these creatures.

But you're not getting any attack/damage bonus and you're not getting the Survival (tracking) and free K checks. So...close, but not quite.


Aratorin wrote:
Having played both, the Flurry Ranger does insane overkill damage to mooks, which just feels like a waste, and does pitiful damage to Bosses, as even with the lesser MAP, you still miss with all but your first attack most of the time. I switched to Precision at 5th and haven't looked back.

Statistically, the opposite would be true. A boss is where you're most likely going to be able to sit in one spot and crank up the number of attacks with party buffs, thus maximizing lowered MAP at the -4 (with agile weapon) level. Add flanking and your 3rd/4th attack are at like -2 before party buffs. If you're in melee, a -2 (agile weapon) means you're only hitting 10% less than with your primary weapon. Plus, things like doubling rings allow you to leverage full benefit from enchanting only one weapon.

But as has been stated, Precision takes the burden off the action economy and encourages either more mobility and possiblly leveraging the benefit from a companion.

My flurry archer teamed up with a Precision archer in a lvl 1 and we seemed about even. He might have been a little stronger because that 1d8 is doubling the damage dice for a longbow on your best attack.

The other big advantage on attacking more is that you get more opportunities to apply crit specializations. If you switched at lvl 5, you didn't get a chance to use those with Flurry.


Outwit is amazing, but it promotes a different playstyle and will probably go to the Monster Hunter feats mainly to get the action economy boost of Hunter Prey + Recall Knowledge and to get Nature to work in any knowledge check about the prey, that they can reach an impressive +40 to it at max lvl with 20 Wis, and for reference a Druid with 24 Wis reach to +38 to the check.

Something like 18 Dex, 16 Wis, 14 Cha focusing in stealth, Intimidation and Nature would be what I would use, maybe even with an animal companion like Bird or Cat for even more party support.


N N 959 wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Having played both, the Flurry Ranger does insane overkill damage to mooks, which just feels like a waste, and does pitiful damage to Bosses, as even with the lesser MAP, you still miss with all but your first attack most of the time. I switched to Precision at 5th and haven't looked back.

Statistically, the opposite would be true. A boss is where you're most likely going to be able to sit in one spot and crank up the number of attacks with party buffs, thus maximizing lowered MAP at the -4 (with agile weapon) level. Add flanking and your 3rd/4th attack are at like -2 before party buffs. If you're in melee, a -2 (agile weapon) means you're only hitting 10% less than with your primary weapon. Plus, things like doubling rings allow you to leverage full benefit from enchanting only one weapon.

But as has been stated, Precision takes the burden off the action economy and encourages either more mobility and possiblly leveraging the benefit from a companion.

My flurry archer teamed up with a Precision archer in a lvl 1 and we seemed about even. He might have been a little stronger because that 1d8 is doubling the damage dice for a longbow on your best attack.

The other big advantage on attacking more is that you get more opportunities to apply crit specializations. If you switched at lvl 5, you didn't get a chance to use those with Flurry.

This was purely about Ranged Rangers. Doubling Rings, Agile, etc... do not apply.


Kyrone wrote:
... will probably go to the Monster Hunter feats mainly to get the action economy boost of Hunter Prey + Recall Knowledge and to get Nature to work in any knowledge check about the prey, that they can reach an impressive +40 to it at max lvl with 20 Wis, and for reference a Druid with 24 Wis reach to +38 to the check.

But that has little to do with Outwit. Any Ranger can do this with Monster Hunter feats.

The Outwit is only getting a +2 on the check. (+4 on the check comparatively...at level 17).

Quote:
Outwit is amazing, but it promotes a different play-style*** I would use, maybe even with an animal companion like Bird or Cat for even more party support.

I wouldn't use the term "amazing" in a broad asense. Yeah, if you want to do nothing but support and avoid combat, it's better than the other two Edges, but the benefits from Monster Hunter are on one save and one attack...for the entire fight and it's not like the other Edges can't provide that as well.

Perhaps the bigger point is that if you were in an urban/intrigue-focused campaign, why would you even play the Outwit ranger? Why not choose a Rogue? To put it another way, what is exactly is the point of this Edge as a stand-alone? You can play a buff Ranger, with way better combat ability and it only costs you +2 on Recall Knowledge checks against your prey.

Most of the Ranger support isn't going to come on until later and it's small stuff: +1 Init,. +1 Attack for one attack, +1 on next save. Worse, some of these don't stack. Scout's Warning doesn't stack with Scout from exploration mode.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that the outwit ranger probably stacks best with a snares and traps build, probably with a high INT and possible MC into Alchemy or even wizard. The bonuses of Out wit essentially are giving you a +4 to 2 attributes when it comes to learning about and outwitting your prey. If you are only using Hunt prey in combat, AS a outwit ranger, you are probably in a lot of trouble already.


N N 959 wrote:
...

It is amazing, the other two edges are mainly more damage, stuff that anyone can do.

Outwit gives you the ability to be better than classes that have the main stat in the skill against the prey, better intimidation than Sorcerer, better nature checks than druids and so on. And the circumnstace bonus basically put the edge in the heavy armor category and later in the monk category, with the only downside is that it don't stack with shields.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I think that the outwit ranger probably stacks best with a snares and traps build, probably with a high INT and possible MC into Alchemy or even wizard.

Trap build works okay, but outwit is kind of tight on skill increases. You really want to leverage Dex/Wis/Cha and investment in Nature/Intimidation, which makes it kind of hard to really squeeze in Crafting and Int too.

The obvious counter-argument is that you can use those bonuses as a substitute for proficiency, but I haven't found that to be a very satisfying option, because you end up no better at the thing you sacrifice your combat capabilities for than someone who just gets it incidentally. You sort of feel like a budget rogue at that point, since rogues get bonus proficiencies and still have a combat feature. You really need to stack modifiers to make Outwit shine.

The other big problem Outwit has that people don't talk about enough is that everything is circumstance bonuses. You get an AC bonus, but you can't use shields (or similar mechanics). You can't benefit from a lot of buffs, or Aid. The book encourages GMs to hand out circumstance bonuses depending on how scenarios are roleplayed and you can't participate in that aspect of the game at all either. Depending on how available these various mechanics are, your Edge might end up not doing much of anything at all.

Paizo made sure that Precision and Flurry (along with things like Rage, Sneak Attack, etc.) didn't overlap with other abilities so you never felt cheated out of your combat bonus and it's a big issue that Outwit didn't get the same treatment.

And, of course, all of this is on top of being a martial who essentially no longer has a damage enhancing combat mechanic.

My experience playing and playing with Outwit rangers is that you have a character who's really good at identifying monsters (and maybe Demoralizing) but doesn't actually have a lot of ways to contribute outside of that (and it's JUST monster ID you excel at, so you still need other people to invest in RK skills anyways).

It compares pretty unfavorably to Investigators and Rogues as far filling the niche of a martial with reduced combat potential in exchange for better skills.


Kyrone wrote:
Outwit gives you the ability to be better than classes that have the main stat in the skill against the prey, better intimidation than Sorcerer, better nature checks than druids and so on.

Your post is misleading. It's a zero sum game. You aren't getting BOTH better Intimidation than a Sorc and Nature than a Druid without giving up a whole lot in other areas. In fact, I don't even know if you can get two 16's when neither of them is your class' Primary stat.

Quote:
And the circumnstace bonus basically put the edge in the heavy armor category and later in the monk category, with the only downside is that it don't stack with shields.

Dude...it's +1...only against your prey. Good luck convincing to GM to make sure only your prey is attacking you.

Same with all the other bonuses, you're not getting +2 against anything that's not your prey. Room full of sleeping orcs, you're only getting a bonus against one. Trying to scout? Well, if you don't know who's there, you don't even get the bonus.

Sure, in a social situation, you can usually Prey the one person you need to Intimidate. In combat? I can't say I'm looking to play a Ranger to run around using Intimidate every fight. That isn't really what I envision when I choose that class. *shrug*

And that Recall K check is doing squat from levels 1-9 when you've only got Nature. Remember, Monster Hunter/Warden requires that you get a "critical success" to get any combat bonus from it.

I think you're totally overselling it, but if it makes you happy, more power to you.


Aratorin wrote:
This was purely about Ranged Rangers. Doubling Rings, Agile, etc... do not apply.

It still applies for ranged, it's just not as big a benefit as with TWF. With one hard target (the boss), you don't have to keep re-applying Hunt Prey. This gives you more actions to keep firing. Plus, Hunted Shot is always giving you two attacks, so you're always getting the benefit of Flurry.

The one thing I will say about Precision is that it much more represents hunting a target and the benefit you'd expect to get i.e. a kill shot.. Where as Flurry is actually completely contrary to hunting from conceptual perspective.

If Precision advanced like Sneak Attack, then I'd probably be more interested in exploring it..


Anne Archer wrote:

Of course an Animal Companion works. You can either 1) have it attack twice for one Ranger Action, at 0 & -5, or 2) have it Support. While the differing animals have differing support effects, a bear adds 1d8 to every arrow. Precision only adds 1d8 to the first attack.

Not if you are a Flurry Ranger. A Flurry Ranger doesn't increase his damage output thanks to an animal companion because he has to use one of his action to do so (and every action count for a Flurry Ranger). A Precision Ranger never attacks at -10 as it's a waste of an action, so he will use Animal Companions and such features, increasing his damage output over Flurry.

So, if you have one or 2 actions available, Precision outdamages Flurry.
If you have 3 or 4 actions available, Precision and Flurry are on par.
Flurry never deals more damage than Precision. Precision is a straight up superior choice if you only focus on damage.

I don't speak about outwit as outwit serves a completely different purpose. If you want to maximize your damage, you don't take Outwit.


SuperBidi wrote:
Flurry never deals more damage than Precision. Precision is a straight up superior choice if you only focus on damage.

It's interesting that you want to try and make that claim without citing any actual statistics to support it.

Even with only 2 actions, Twin Takedown and Hunted Shot means you're benefiting from Flurry i.e. higher likelihood of hitting. You're also ignoring riders (consequences) of getting a 2nd attack that hits e.g. weapons that have extra damage like flaming, Distracting Shot triggering off of two hits, etc.

What percentage of creatures are flat out immune to Precision damage, like Swarms, a favorite monster type, especially at low levels?

I suspect the lethality/effectivness of Precision drops steadily until 11th level when it spikes, and the then drops again until 17th level and then 19th level. At 19th level, Precision looks a lot better than say at 9th level. But it's difficult, if not impossible to know the true benefit of Flurry without considering the weapons, the feats, the average party buffs, etc. The thing with Flurry is that you'll be critting a lot more than Precision and crits can have all kinds of extra benefits beyond what we see in PF1 e.g. traits, crit specialization, etc.

Adding to the list of things you're ignoring, someone with Flurry is typically going to make tactical decisions that maximize the benefit. So they will be attempting more 3 and 4 attack rounds, especially when there are buffs reducing their MAP even lower. The 3rd attack your Precision Ranger is conditioned to avoid (because it's a "waste") is actively sought out by the Flurry Ranger. So while Precision is only using 2 attacks, Flurry is pushing for 3 and 4 a round.

It's easy to make assertions, it's a lot harder to back them up in a game where context is everything. In the end, it really doesn't matter so long as there is no clear winner (sorry, but your assertions aren't proof of anything). It's impossible for anyone to accurately predict the sum value of a dramatically lower MAP from levels 1-20. You'd need outcome data no individual on these forums has access to.


For data, I use Citricking damage calculations which are never perfect (perfect doesn't exist) but quite accurate. You can see that, at level 10 (the worst level for a Precision Ranger according to you), Flurry does 29 average damage with 3 actions while Precision does 20 average damage with 1 action. 22.5% extra damage per action for Flurry. Finding actions that are worth 22.5% of your damage output is not hard. Demoralize (not crited) gives everyone 10-15% damage output for example. The Bear Support gives you 2d8 extra damage, which is more than 22.5% of your overall damage output. So, it's easy to find at least one action that is equivalent to a Flurry -6 arrow. And if you compare then the 2 action damage output of both Flurry and Precision, they are equal. So, even at the worst level for Precision, it's easy to deal equivalent or superior damage than a Flurry build.

I agree with you that I could never prove that any Precision build outdamages any Flurry build, as it's impossible. But if you use a classical build (which Citricking is using) Precision is straight better than Flurry.

So, I may be wrong but at least I think my argument holds some credibility and I have data to back it up.


SuperBidi wrote:
For data, I use Citricking damage calculations which are never perfect (perfect doesn't exist) but quite accurate.

I have to emphatically disagree. His doing projections based on assumptions. This isn't outcome data, which is the only thing that can prove the case one way or another.

I've seen Citrick's calculations and they are, imo, misinformation. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people are looking at his results and thinking it proves something it does not. The best thing you can do with an analysis like that is understand all the reasons it's wrong. That helps you understand what influences the outcomes. Then you can look at how to try and represent those missing elements and you learn even more about how combat works.

Quote:
I agree with you that I could never prove that any Precision build outdamages any Flurry build, as it's impossible. But if you use a classical build (which Citricking is using) Precision is straight better than Flurry.

I don't think Citirck proves that, I think he shows that under a certain set of assumptions, X results. How closely his assumptions mirror actual game play is a topic for another thread.

Quote:
So, I may be wrong but at least I think my argument holds some credibility and I have data to back it up.

I think there is very real possibility that Precision can produce more damage than Flurry in a given context. But as I said before, I think the real value in Precision is that it supports a different type of play-style without being provably inferior in combat. I would certainly agree that if your play style only affords you one or two attacks per round, Precision is going to be a very good (maybe superior) option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
For data, I use Citricking damage calculations which are never perfect (perfect doesn't exist) but quite accurate.

I have to emphatically disagree. His doing projections based on assumptions. This isn't outcome data, which is the only thing that can prove the case one way or another.

I've seen Citrick's calculations and they are, imo, misinformation. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people are looking at his results and thinking it proves something it does not. The best thing you can do with an analysis like that is understand all the reasons it's wrong. That helps you understand what influences the outcomes. Then you can look at how to try and represent those missing elements and you learn even more about how combat works.

Quote:
I agree with you that I could never prove that any Precision build outdamages any Flurry build, as it's impossible. But if you use a classical build (which Citricking is using) Precision is straight better than Flurry.

I don't think Citirck proves that, I think he shows that under a certain set of assumptions, X results. How closely his assumptions mirror actual game play is a topic for another thread.

Quote:
So, I may be wrong but at least I think my argument holds some credibility and I have data to back it up.
I think there is very real possibility that Precision can produce more damage than Flurry in a given context. But as I said before, I think the real value in Precision is that it supports a different type of play-style without being provably inferior in combat. I would certainly agree that if your play style only affords you one or two attacks per round, Precision is going to be a very good (maybe superior) option.

Again. I played with Flurry for 5 levels. Enemy mooks exploded. Against enemy bosses, The first Attack hit, and the other 3 routinely missed. Boss ACs are so high, that -3,-6,-6 is just as detrimental as -5,-10,-10.

Routinely dealing a minimum 2d8 (Striking) + 2d8 (Bear and Precision) on the one attack that hits is way better than firing a hail of arrows that mostly miss.

I went from feeling useless during boss encounters to being a badass.

If I was TWF, I would go Flurry.


Aratorin wrote:
The first Attack hit, and the other 3 routinely missed. Boss ACs are so high, that -3,-6,-6 is just as detrimental as -5,-10,-10.

The second attack (assuming no other party buffs like Inspire or Bless, both of which are pretty routine in my missions) is only at 15% less likely to hit than the first attack. If you are getting even a +1 buff, you're at 10% less likely to hit and that wouldn't translate into "routinely missed" on a comparative level. *shrug* Sounds like Precision is the better choice for how you roll the dice/lack of attack buffs.

But yes if you need to roll 19's to hit, then having your best attack front-loaded with damage is going to be better.

Quote:
I played with Flurry for 5 levels. Enemy mooks exploded.

If you are playing with Precision, and you don't kill the mook with your first round of attacks, then the same things is going to happen to Precision. Precision is far more likely to result in wasted damage against mooks that take two or more rounds to kill.


N N 959 wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
The first Attack hit, and the other 3 routinely missed. Boss ACs are so high, that -3,-6,-6 is just as detrimental as -5,-10,-10.

The second attack (assuming no other party buffs like Inspire or Bless, both of which are pretty routine in my missions) is only at 15% less likely to hit than the first attack. If you are getting even a +1 buff, you're at 10% less likely to hit and that wouldn't translate into "routinely missed" on a comparative level. *shrug* Sounds like Precision is the better choice for how you roll the dice/lack of attack buffs.

But yes if you need to roll 19's to hit, then having your best attack front-loaded with damage is going to be better.

Quote:
I played with Flurry for 5 levels. Enemy mooks exploded.

If you are playing with Precision, and you don't kill the mook with your first round of attacks, then the same things is going to happen to Precision. Precision is far more likely to result in wasted damage against mooks that take two or more rounds to kill.

The +1 buff applies to the first attack as well. The second attack is still 15% more likely to miss than the first. It goes up to 30% more likely to miss with the 3rd and 4th attacks.


Aratorin wrote:
The +1 buff applies to the first attack as well. The second attack is still 15% more likely to miss than the first.

I see, so you're speaking in relative terms on the -3, -6, -6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

N, that sounds like a very harsh assessment of the tool I made. If you'd have looked at it you'd have found you can put any assumptions you want in it.


Citricking, while you are here, I'd love more mathematical data to support my point of view (and I must admit I'm a bit lost with your tool, sorry about that).
Could you make a few calculations for both Flurry and Precision Ranger, please?

With this setup:
Composite Shortbow full of runes (Striking and elemental damage) of equivalent level
Maxed Dexterity
16 starting Strength increased at all levels

And these action sequences:

Flurry: Hunted Shot, Strike, Strike
Flurry: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot, Strike
Precision: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot, Strike

And on another slide:
Flurry: Hunted Shot, Strike
Flurry: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot
Precision: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot

Against a same level opponent with average AC.

What I want to see is if Bear Animal Companion Support ability impacts Flurry much.
And if, once you add other actions, Precision outdamages Flurry for 2-action sequences and competes with Flurry for 3-action sequences.


SuperBidi wrote:

Citricking, while you are here, I'd love more mathematical data to support my point of view (and I must admit I'm a bit lost with your tool, sorry about that).

Could you make a few calculations for both Flurry and Precision Ranger, please?

With this setup:
Composite Shortbow full of runes (Striking and elemental damage) of equivalent level
Maxed Dexterity
16 starting Strength increased at all levels

And these action sequences:

Flurry: Hunted Shot, Strike, Strike
Flurry: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot, Strike
Precision: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot, Strike

And on another slide:
Flurry: Hunted Shot, Strike
Flurry: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot
Precision: Bear Animal Companion, Hunted Shot

Against a same level opponent with average AC.

What I want to see is if Bear Animal Companion Support ability impacts Flurry much.
And if, once you add other actions, Precision outdamages Flurry for 2-action sequences and competes with Flurry for 3-action sequences.

Always on my phone, so it's a bit hard to use the tool well. So I don't think I'll make that.

But what's confusing, maybe I can clear that up ?


citricking wrote:
But what's confusing, maybe I can clear that up ?

A little bit of lazyness, I must admit :)

So, I figured out how to use it and made 2 graphs (I hope I didn't make a mistake).
On each graph, the blue line is a Precision Ranger with Bear Support ability, the red line is a Flurry Ranger with Bear Support ability and the green line a Flurry Ranger without Bear Support.
I haven't included Masterful Hunter, so the end of the graphs are not valid (but I think noone cares about levels 17-20).

2 actions graph.
3 actions graph.

What we see:
For 2 actions, Precision is always outdamaging Flurry. Bear support improves Flurry but by just a little bit, being even useless at some levels (levels 8 and 9).
For 3 actions, Bear support now improves Flurry. With Bear support, Flurry and Precision are on par (and I've used a useless -10 Strike as Precision third action).

I have used what I think is the most damaging shortbow build (starting at 16 strength is not a stapple for a bow ranger). The more damage you do with your bow and the more Flurry is improved over Precision.
So, I think my point hold: Precision is a straight up increase over Flurry as long as you take feats to improve your damage.


Consider me convinced.

I wonder what the numbers would be for a melee build? My gut tells me precision is still likely to be better, because how many times do you get to be next to an enemy, have it marked, and then get to flurry for 4 attacks? Seems much harder to do than a bow. The only damage you have over the bow being using full strength and a better die on one attack.


citricking wrote:
N, that sounds like a very harsh assessment of the tool I made. If you'd have looked at it you'd have found you can put any assumptions you want in it.

I have looked at your tool, extensively. My criticism isn't so much at the tool, it's at how it's presented and used as "proof" of something which it does not prove.

NN959 wrote:
I've seen Citrick's calculations and they are, imo, misinformation. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people are looking at his results and thinking it proves something it does not.

By way of analogy, if I have a graph that shows falling from 30ft, head down, on to sharp pointy rocks six inches long is fatal, that's not proof that all falls are always fatal.


N N 959 wrote:
citricking wrote:
N, that sounds like a very harsh assessment of the tool I made. If you'd have looked at it you'd have found you can put any assumptions you want in it.

I have looked at your tool, extensively. My criticism isn't so much at the tool, it's at how it's presented and used as "proof" of something which it does not prove.

NN959 wrote:
I've seen Citrick's calculations and they are, imo, misinformation. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people are looking at his results and thinking it proves something it does not.

By way of analogy, if I have a graph that shows falling from 30ft, head down, on to sharp pointy rocks six inches long is fatal, that's not proof that all falls are always fatal.

Superbidi made a claim, and then backed that claim up with a mathematical model.

Please provide any mathematical model that disproves his claim, or point out a specific error with his assumptions (and what the assumption should be, and how that then flows through the rest of the math).

Until I see numbers I will be completely unswayed that flurry is better than precision for a ranged character.


Let me state that for the record, I don't think Precision is a bad choice for an archery Ranger. In fact, I would submit that it was my complaint about Flurry not representing "hunting" before the Playtest that may have motivated Paizo to create Precision in the first place. So if anything, I have an emotional reason to support it over Flurry.

SuperBidi wrote:
I have used what I think is the most damaging shortbow build (starting at 16 strength is not a stapple for a bow ranger). The more damage you do with your bow and the more Flurry is improved over Precision.

If the second part of your statement is true, then the first part is not. Flurry is more leveraged by higher damage weapons i.e. longbow.

Quote:
So, I think my point hold: Precision is a straight up increase over Flurry as long as you take feats to improve your damage.

Two graphs don't prove that point. But let's talk about Precision and why it looks good on paper for an archery ranger. The main advantage of Precision is that it works in the same category of benefit as we see from PF1's Power Attack and Deadly Aim: It's adding an improvement in damage to every hit, And, the flat damage increase is greater than the loss in expected damage from lower accuracy.

In order for Flurry to equal or exceed this, the improvement in accuracy has to amount to the same average damage increase of a 1d8 (which is 4.5 on average). That's really tough to do at low level and not trivial at high level in PF2. If we consider just the increase in accuracy of MAP by Flurry, we're getting 10% more accuracy on the second attack and 20% on the 3rd/4th attacks. So how much damage expected damage would attacks 2-4 have to do to equal a 1d8? If my calculus is correct, you'd need a base attack of 2d8. So 3 extra attacks with Flurry doing 2d8 would average an extra 4.5 points of damage over someone not using Flurry. But that's assuming attacks 2-4 can't crit. If they can crit, then Flurry looks better.

the math:
Perhaps my math is wrong, so I'll explain what I'm doing. Flurry improves the acurracy of the 2nd attack by 2 numbers on a d20, so that's a 10% incease in accuracy...which means you'll do 10% more expected damage. Again, we're ignoring crits. The 3rd and 4th attack essentially get +4 to non-Flurry so that's a 20% increase in expected damage on a d20. If we take the .10 X Expected Damage, we get the increase in damage from the 2nd attack. We do the same for the 3rd and 4th attacks at .2.

So to simplify, Flurry attacks 2-4 are adding 50% of the Expected Damage for the weapon over a non-Flurry sequence. If you're doing 1d8 ( a longbow), then you're expected damage is 4.5 So it takes a 2d8 attack for attacks 2-4 to equal the 4.5 from Precision from levels 1-10.

Did I overlook something?

If I'm using a shortbow, then I need a 3d6 atttack with Flurry to get past Precision. But using an unmodified longobw, I can't get enough damage modifiers at low level to catch up. This is why Precision graphs so good in your example. Using a low damage weapon favors Precision's front loaded damage.

There's another huge oversight that I think is evident with Citrick's analysis, and it arises based on comments in this thread. Namely, a Precision Ranger isn't going to take the 3rd and 4th attacks at -10. But, you're adding in that damage anyway and that's skewing the results. If you want a more realistic comparison, it would be the 2 attack Precision vs the 3 & 4 attack Flurry. Because as I stated, if you have Flurry, then you're going to maximize it. I'm going to make tactical and strategic choices that get me 3 and 4 attacks per round.

And, even if the other attacks are at a relative -3, -6, -6. If the archery Ranger is getting +4 because of party buff and flat-footed targets (see Cat companion and Distracting Shot), then those 3rd and 4th attacks are absolutely viable options compared to the non Flurry whose -10 is only down to -6. So it's not the relative difference between the attacks, its how likely are those 3rd and 4th attacks to hit? If I can hit on a 16, I personally will roll the dice. If I need a 20, then I'm looking for other options, and that means I have no chance of hitting and that damage from some hits can't be added to my graph.

Now, maybe I'm overlooking some math, so if you think I'm doing it wrong let's be civil and point out my mistake. I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm trying to understand the problem.

As far as companion, I'll have to look at that later. It's a lot more complex.


MongrelHorde wrote:
Superbidi made a claim, and then backed that claim up with a mathematical model.

Except...you've got no proof that model is accurate. Neither he (nor Citrick) backed it up with real life data and proved his predictions model actual game play. So Bidi is back at square one. I can make a graph that shows 1+1=3. That doesn't mean its true.

Quote:
Until I see numbers I will be completely unswayed that flurry is better than precision for a ranged character.

I'm not try to "sway" you...at all. You are 100% entitled to subscribe to whatever belief you want to based on whatever good or bad science you accept as verities. I'm just interested in exploring the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
If the second part of your statement is true, then the first part is not. Flurry is more leveraged by higher damage weapons i.e. longbow.

Longbow improves damage but have Volley. In order to get out of Volley range, you'll need to move (or use Point Blank Shot) and as such to use one action.

So, Longbow increase damage at the cost of actions, and as such increase Precision more than Flurry.

To increase Flurry more than Precision you need to find a damage enhancer that is not costing actions. And that doesn't exist in this game because developers have removed all math fixers. So, my damage graphs are actually the ideal Flurry damage graphs. If you want, I can show the damage graphs for a non damage optimized bow Ranger and you'll see how Precision shines even more.

And your maths are wrong. I'm raising awareness against this fallacy: -6 attacks are not good attacks. You can get to similar damage output by using alternate actions (like the Bear Support Ability). Once you realize that, you understand why Flurry can't outshine Precision as the only valid bonus Flurry gives is a +2 to hit at your second attack. Which means that you need more than 40 damage per hits for Flurry to outdamage Precision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
MongrelHorde wrote:
Superbidi made a claim, and then backed that claim up with a mathematical model.

Except...you've got no proof that model is accurate. Neither he (nor Citrick) backed it up with real life data and proved his predictions model actual game play. So Bidi is back at square one. I can make a graph that shows 1+1=3. That doesn't mean its true.

Quote:
Until I see numbers I will be completely unswayed that flurry is better than precision for a ranged character.

I'm not try to "sway" you...at all. You are 100% entitled to subscribe to whatever belief you want to based on whatever good or bad science you accept as verities. I'm just interested in exploring the topic.

I think you have a misunderstanding of citricking's tool and the underlying math it uses.

Your math is wrong.

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Hunted Shot Clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.