![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
Primarily, first and foremost, the ranger needs to have one more introductory feat or ability that isn't purely combat oriented, included as part of what a ranger is. That ability could be from the list I previously had mentioned, or it could be something else. Personally, I would be ecstatic if that ability was a small initial general boost to tracking that was not dependant on "Hunt Prey". Let's say, a +1 boost. Would it be used all the time? Probably not. It would be highly circumstantial. It WOULD however, make me feel like my ranger has something special that could occasionally be of help to my party and it would definitely feel, "rangery". For another person, what makes the class feel "rangery", might be something slightly different. I think if there was a list of options given at level 1 and the player was told to pick one of those options, and only one, as their "rangery" boost, I think that would probably be enough to give the class a little boost and more importantly, make rangers FEEL LIKE RANGERS.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
Wow, it's fascinating to see how people completely misinterpret a post. I NEVER said that rangers should be EQUAL to fighters in terms of combat capability. What I DID say was that even if a ranger devotes ALL of his feats towards catching up to a fighter, he is still behind and on top of that also has additional restrictions such as lack of heavy armor use, etc. What I had proposed was that rangers should be allowed to have one free class utility feat from the list I presented so as to make these disadvantages less pronounced AND give them more of a unique flavor. I don't want rangers to be fighters. Let fighters be fighters. Rangers should be more versatile but at the cost of combat prowess. I would argue that right now, that the cost in combat prowess in order to have versatility is a bit too extreme.
See, this just isn't my experience. Rangers don't actually have that many combat feats, at least not at low levels. You need Hunted Shot as an archer, Twin Takedown as a dual wielder, Crossbow Ace and Running Reload as a crossbow ace. Maybe Quickdraw if you want to switch hit That's... Pretty much all you need for combat until you start getting like 10th level feats. Nothing else really makes a fighting style pop off. Everything in between those levels is like an ok option to use some of the time.
Which makes it hard not to branch out a little and animal companion or snares or something that adds a whole new dimension to your character. Which isn't to say that Rangers shouldn't get more class feats, but the idea that someone is sinking all of their feats into catching up to a fighter seems foreign to me.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
I would like to point out that while "Hunt Prey" is a really nice ability to have for rangers and does have a nice "rangery" feel to it, it just doesn't quite seem enough, at least for me, to make rangers feel that much different from other martials. I suppose my earlier suggestion of a general +1 boost to tracking is just more of the same but what I was really trying to convey was the need to give the rangers a niche that only they can be the best at filling while not having that niche be exclusive. In other words, a party shouldn't NEED a ranger to fulfill a specific task but perhaps that ranger would be the undisputed best at doing so.
For example, right now it is incredibly easy for another class to easily match or surpass rangers at tracking. Clerics could do it by sheer force of wisdom and rogues could do it by sheer force of skills. Now, granted there is a cost to these other classes to achieve that prowess but the cost is not that huge. A cleric only needs to put a single skill point into Survival in order for him/her to match a ranger, at least early on. A rogue could just keep dumping skill points into Survival without too much of a significant cost due to the overwhelming amount of skill points the rogue has. A ranger should have a bit more of an advantage than just "Hunt Prey" to give him a bit of an edge and claim title of "best tracker". Whether that is a simple +1 boost to Survival when tracking, or a baked in small boost (such as an extra 5 feet) to movement while tracking, it would help cement the feeling that the ranger is the best at tracking.
By the way, I do know that rangers have access to a feat at level 6 that gives them full movement while tracking. However, taking this feat comes at the cost of very important combat feats. A ranger should be able, in my opinion, be allowed to have this small boost in tracking from the level 1 choice I suggested AND be allowed to continue on with their chosen line of combat. Will they be as good at tracking as a ranger with "Swift Tracker"? No of course not. But then, that is the choice they must make at level 6. At least they will still be able to feel like their tracking ability is still special. They are after all, RANGERS.
Now apply this notion to other aspects of what once were rangers. Small bonuses to certain lines of abilities. Create a list of options. Allow the ranger to select only ONE of these small boosts at level 1. It's not much (at least I don't feel like it's much) that I am asking for, but it would, I think, make rangers feel more useful and more special in their wheelhouses while not turning rangers into the Swiss army knives they used to be.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Squiggit |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Skeletal Technician](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9086-SkeletalTechnician_90.jpeg)
Which makes it hard not to branch out a little and animal companion or snares or something that adds a whole new dimension to your character.
For me the trouble has been branching out in multiple directions.
Rangers have a lot of different ideas, but putting more than one of them in the character can make your build feel really stretched thin. That's obviously not entirely a bad thing, since you want to make choices, but those choices are also the core of the Ranger's identity.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
Rangers have a LOT of combat feats at low levels. Feats that while being more situational than "Twin Takedown" or "Hunted Shot", are STILL INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. For my own play style, I can not imagine being sufficiently effective without also picking up "Quick Draw" at level 2, "Twin Parry" at level 4, "Skirmish Strike at level 6 and "Blind Fight at level 8. If you want to be really good at melee or ranged you will HAVE to pick up most of the combat oriented feats found at these levels. That means not having any ability to have another niche you can work on. This just does not feel like what a ranger should be. I am not asking to be all things at all times. Especially not for pure combat (that is a fighter thing). I AM asking for a little bit of diversity for the ranger class that does NOT have to come at the expense of combat feats.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Ranger was a lot more than fighting because it had all the nature stuff as the core of the class.
The PF2 Ranger is a lot more about fighting than the PF1 Ranger. For the sole fact that PF2's Ranger is all about Hunt Prey, not the nature stuff. Even the Warden spells are all about combat, traps, tracking, or healing. All those utility and/or damage spells about camping, nature, or making things easier? Gone.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
Captain Morgan wrote:
Which makes it hard not to branch out a little and animal companion or snares or something that adds a whole new dimension to your character.For me the trouble has been branching out in multiple directions.
Rangers have a lot of different ideas, but putting more than one of them in the character can make your build feel really stretched thin. That's obviously not entirely a bad thing, since you want to make choices, but those choices are also the core of the Ranger's identity.
Oh, I agree. As I said, I like double class feats for the ranger particularly. I just don't think catching up to the fighter is a contributor to the feat bottleneck in a meaningful way.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
RexAliquid |
![Pilts Swastel](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/A7-Pilts-Swastel.jpg)
By the way, I do know that rangers have access to a feat at level 6 that gives them full movement while tracking. However, taking this feat comes at the cost of very important combat feats.
Lol. What important combat feats? My PFS ranger just took Swift Tracker for lack of more interesting options. That free stride against a hunted prey is a pretty nice benefit for tracking them down.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
Rangers have a LOT of combat feats at low levels. Feats that while being more situational than "Twin Takedown" or "Hunted Shot", are STILL INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. For my own play style, I can not imagine being sufficiently effective without also picking up "Quick Draw" at level 2, "Twin Parry" at level 4, "Skirmish Strike at level 6 and "Blind Fight at level 8. If you want to be really good at melee or ranged you will HAVE to pick up most of the combat oriented feats found at these levels.
No, you really don't. You may choose to do so, and I won't knock your choice, but... Blind Fight is a mandatory feat? Really? And Skirmish Strike doesn't even work with Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot as all of them have the Flourish trait. Twin Parry is OK, but if you are dual wielding you are probably a flurry build and you're giving up an attack to do it which undermines the point of the Flurry Ranger. I can't really justify using it until Twin Riposte comes into play.
Most of those are situational feats that you MIGHT find yourself using here and there. From a combat optimization standpoint, they are worse than the constant benefits of an animal companion. Nor will they be as staggeringly encounter shifting when you do get to use them as a few well placed snares. Even Monster Hunter has a bigger impact in fights than most of these.
You're projecting your own play style as the way everyone needs to play the class, and I assure you it is not.
Also... while I get wanting to have class specific resources emphasize the Ranger themes, Rangers get skill feats which can fill out these concepts pretty dang well. The core ranger skills are stealth, survival, and nature, which is easy to cover on one character. There are class feats to further enhance these, but using Survey Wildlife to figure out what monsters are in the area and then Hunt Prey to get a bonus to tracking them (and by extension, most likely initiative when you find them) covers an awful lot of the Ranger vibe already.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
It appears that you think these feats are not good because they don't combine with each other. Their value is in making a ranger able to adapt to changing conditions in combat. If those feats could actually combine, it would likely make the ranger overpowered. Yes they are situational. But then, combat is like that. Situations arise that require the use of different tools. I consider these feats to be invaluable in allowing a ranger to adapt. For that reason, I do consider them to be incredibly important and probably needed IF you want to be versatile. They are NOT mandatory though. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. To be REALLY good at combat you DO have to be able to adapt to changing situations. You do NOT need to have these feats, though, if you simply want to be good at combat but not necessarily able to adapt as easily to changing conditions.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
Additionally, I would like to point out that I did indicate I was talking primarily about my own play style. Admittedly, I should have made reference to that again deeper into my post and indicated that I was referring strictly to the combat play styles that did not rely on animal companions or snares. To that I offer a mea culpa. When incorporating animal companions or snares into the mix of ranger tricks, obviously there will be a trade off in terms of pure combat feats. However, I still believe that those pure combat feats are much better, at least in terms of offering some versatility, than you appear to believe.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
For that reason, I do consider them to be incredibly important and probably needed IF you want to be versatile. They are NOT mandatory though. Please do not try to put words in my mouth.
He's not putting words in your mouth. He's responding to your words:
If you want to be really good at melee or ranged you will HAVE to pick up most of the combat oriented feats found at these levels.
It's clear now that you meant "melee or ranged" to be a bigger qualifier, that you meant in order to be able to switch between both, but I think you can understand how someone can read that sentence and come away thinking you are labeling those feats as mandatory for every build.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes, I agree. That is why I offered a mea culpa. I really should have been more specific and clarified what I was talking about. I do apologize. Thanks for pointing that out by the way. Doing that has helped to remove some of the misunderstanding on my part. You were also quite polite about this and that is also appreciated. Nice to see folks in these forums who are willing to have friendly discourses.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
Oh look, people are talking about Rangers...
Primarily, first and foremost, the ranger needs to have one more introductory feat or ability that isn't purely combat oriented, included as part of what a ranger is. That ability could be from the list I previously had mentioned, or it could be something else. Personally, I would be ecstatic if that ability was a small initial general boost to tracking that was not dependant on "Hunt Prey". Let's say, a +1 boost. Would it be used all the time? Probably not. It would be highly circumstantial. It WOULD however, make me feel like my ranger has something special that could occasionally be of help to my party and it would definitely feel, "rangery". For another person, what makes the class feel "rangery", might be something slightly different. I think if there was a list of options given at level 1 and the player was told to pick one of those options, and only one, as their "rangery" boost, I think that would probably be enough to give the class a little boost and more importantly, make rangers FEEL LIKE RANGERS.
A-frickin-men. This is very much what I tried to get Paizo to understand during the Playtest. No dice.
It's clear that Paizo wanted the Ranger base chassis to be a combat platform. Okay...that makes sense. But it's clear that they wanted all the other stuff to be optional. Okay...I can kind of get that. But they then juxtaposed that with all the combat feats...and later spells. All the "rangery" stuff from PF1 was commoditized.
The downside of this is that it prevented Paizo from giving the Ranger any real purpose. It's just a fighter with Nature and Survival pre-chosen and a specific combat mechanic that has no historical relationship to any other game or fictional rendition of previous Rangers. In essence Paizo came up with some combat mechanic (Hunt Prey + Flurry) and stuck it on the Ranger and then tried to convince people this is (and essentially only this) is what being a Ranger is...sorry, that just makes me laugh.
On the Paizo forums, you find a subset of players who either hated the PF1 Ranger or didn't value all the "rangery" things about the class and are happy it's all been removed, spells especially. Never mind that every single iteration (including this one) of the Ranger in D&D/PF has had spells (thought I am not sure about D&D 2.0), you still have people who come on here and say Spells are somehow not a Ranger thing (translation = They dipped into Ranger and never got spells / took an archetype that replaced them, so Rangers shouldn't have spells).
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
I actually do appreciate being able to adapt in combat... But I happen to think the Ranger is the most adaptable martial in the game, if we mean within the scope of a single fight. Certainly more so than Fighters, who lose out on their biggest edge if they have to switch weapon groups. A melee fighter struggles when the enemy flies out of reach, but the Ranger just pulls out a bow and plunks away. An archer fighter loses their accuracy edge if enemies leave their first range increment, while a Ranger maintains their Hunter's Edge. An archer fighter also deals sub-optimal damage when forced into melee while the ranger just pulls out an elven curve blade and goes to town.
I can respect wanting to lean further into this... But I think this also embodies a legit advantages Rangers have over fighters without having to touch skill stuff, so it strikes me as a fine enough trade off for feat resources.
(I still would have preferred if there were skill feats with a Ranger trait only they could take instead of having to spend class feats, mind, but that ship has sailed. It is easier to house rule extra class feats than try and rewrite the published material.)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
See, this just isn't my experience. Rangers don't actually have that many combat feats, at least not at low levels.
You know, I get where you are coming from and why you think you can say that, but I can't agree..
Let's set aside spells for the moment. At 4th and 6th level, it does kind of feels like there is no compelling combat choice, provided you don't have an animal companion and are human. But that feeling is more illusion than reality. If you want to go Master Monster Hunter, an ability that seems great on the surface, you have to use up those feats to get Monster Hunter and either Warden or, no with spells, Hunter's Luck.
If you are melee, you're having to pick up Disrupt Prey at 4 if you want a melee AoO. Disrupt Prey is not a "rangery" feat. It's a severely restricted version of the Fighter's base AoO ability. At 6th, you staring at back at Twin Parry to try and improve your AC.
If you're also forced with taking Disrupt Prey if you want Snap Shot. Or, you're taking Far Shot. And that's assuming you aren't taking Monster Hunter or Monster Warden. Of course, that leaves no room for Deadly Aim, a mainstay in PF1 for ranged builds, but admittedly weak in PF2, but the damage boost is comparable to Precision damage alone and a great compliment to that style.
If you're using a companion, you're having to take the companion upgrade at 6th. And now with spells, you're pretty much compelled to try and take one of the Warden spells to keep your companion alive.
That's... Pretty much all you need for combat until you start getting like 10th level feats.
At 8th level, you need Blind-Fight, it's that good, comparatively. And it gets worse from there. The Ranger is overloaded with combat choices and you frankly can't take enough of them, regardless of whether you go bow or blade. If you take Master Monster Hunter, you're in the hole and it basically comes down to what are you willing to go without.
Nothing else really makes a fighting style pop off. Everything in between those levels is like an ok option to use some of the time.
That's a back-handed way of saying the combat feats at 4, 6, and 8, all suck, so go flavor. But spells aside, the flavor feats all suck. And the handy cap of using Hunt Prey means the Ranger needs all the combat help it can get.
Which isn't to say that Rangers shouldn't get more class feats.
More class feats won't solve the problem as I understand Eraden's description of it. The Ranger needed something baked in that gave the class purpose, a reason for wanting one in the party.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
Correct, N N 959. I am asking for something to give flavor to rangers without it being another combat oriented skill/feat. Right now, to me at least, rangers just don't feel "rangery" enough. Criteria for the change to the class, to me, would be for a list of features (NON COMBAT) offered as choices for aspiring rangers at level 1. The soon to be minted ranger picks one of those that hopefully gives the player that "rangery" feel about his/her character. These features should be somewhat modest in power so as to not turn rangers back into Swiss army knives again.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
I actually do appreciate being able to adapt in combat... But I happen to think the Ranger is the most adaptable martial in the game, if we mean within the scope of a single fight.
No, the ranger is not any more adaptable than any other class and actually a lot more limited than Fighter.
Certainly more so than Fighters, who lose out on their biggest edge if they have to switch weapon groups.
Uh what? The Fighters +2 over all other martials works irrespective of what weapon they are using. Same with their AoO.
A melee fighter struggles when the enemy flies out of reach, but the Ranger just pulls out a bow and plunks away. An archer fighter loses their accuracy edge if enemies leave their first range increment, while a Ranger maintains their Hunter's Edge. An archer fighter also deals sub-optimal damage when forced into melee while the ranger just pulls out an elven curve blade and goes to town.
Yeah, that's just wrong on all kinds of levels. The main thing you're forgetting is that by level 5, everyone is pretty much stuck with one weapon. Once you get Striking on your main weapon, you aren't switching to a second weapon unless you have the gold to put Striking on a weapon you're not built to leverage.
A Ranger chooses feats to support their style. The class is balanced around the class using Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot. Once you switch to a fighting approach where you can't use those abilities, you're at like Bard level effectiveness in combat, and that's assuming you're back up weapon has the same Runes as you're main weapon.
I can respect wanting to lean further into this... But I think this also embodies a legit advantages Rangers have over fighters without having to touch skill stuff, so it strikes me as a fine enough trade off for feat resources.
I don't now what adventures you've been on, but I've played with Rangers having their primary style be ineffective...and so did the Rangers. None of them were able to change it up or adapt. Didn't happen.
And don't even get me started on Companion dependent Rangers. Companions drop like grass to scythe vs bosses. I was in an adventure where the Ranger wouldn't even use his companion against the boss for fear of it getting KO'd....lol. The Ranger died shortly there after.
Rangers are not adaptable in combat. PF2, really forces you to pick a style and focus on it.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
Correct, N N 959. I am asking for something to give flavor to rangers without it being another combat oriented skill/feat.
I can imagine Paizo will argue they did that with Trackless Step, Nature's Edge, and Wild Stride.
I can also imagine that Paizo might try and argue that some of the stat/skill boosts e.g. Perception, Will Saves, Reflex, etc. are "rangerish"
And given the subjective nature of this game, you can't convince them they are wrong unless forum posters complain en masse. But what happened was that all the posters that loved the removal of spells and Favored Enemy from Core, got on the forums and extolled the decision. All the people who were disgusted with the changes, didn't bother. So Paizo got the positive reinforcement that they wanted to hear.
Right now, to me at least, rangers just don't feel "rangery" enough.
But the problem with that statement is all the posters (and it's a small group) who don't value all those "rangery" things, will insist the class does feel Rangery on account Nature and Survival....lol (as if no other class can choose those skills).
The hard truth, is that the class is more Rangery than anything else out of the box. The fact that you could build a more Ranger-fulfilling character from another class, seems largely irrelevant to Paizo, because they aren't gong to agree with you about what it means to be a Ranger. And the real kicker is the forums are dominated by people who don't agree with you, because those who do, aren't playing PF2.
Criteria for the change to the class, to me, would be for a list of features (NON COMBAT) offered as choices for aspiring rangers at level 1.
I originally tried to argue a long these lines, but then I realized the futility:
1. The Ranger class has to abide by the same design template as all the other classes. This means the class can only have X+Y 1st level abilities, like every other class. Paizo didn't care if the class had special needs, they were committed to stuffing it in a box the same size everyone else's.
2. Paizo was committed to stoping the Ranger "dipping" that was rampant in PF1. This means they didn't want to front-load the class. In PF1, you could take 2 levels of Ranger and get a ton of the class' benefits. So the idea of giving stuff out at lvl 1 was something they didn't want to do. Personally, I can understand that choice. But jesus H xxxxxx, don't stick the class with Trackless Step. That feat is so utterly worthless, it truly feels insulting to people who play this class.
The hard truth is the Ranger is don, Paizo isn't going to change anything. It's too bad you weren't here during the Playtest. Who knows, maybe one more voice might have had an effect.
I will say that the Warden Spells are a huge difference maker for me. I do feel they go a LONG way in making the class feel "rangery." Go that route and tell me if it works for you.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
Quote:Certainly more so than Fighters, who lose out on their biggest edge if they have to switch weapon groups.Uh what? The Fighters +2 over all other martials works irrespective of what weapon they are using.
Not past level 5.
Fighter Weapon MasteryLevel 5
Hours spent training with your preferred weapons, learning and developing new combat techniques, have made you particularly effective with your weapons of choice. Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple and martial weapons in that group, and to expert with the advanced weapons in that group. You gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapons for which you have master proficiency.
They don't catch up in all the others until level 19.
Yeah, that's just wrong on all kinds of levels. The main thing you're forgetting is that by level 5, everyone is pretty much stuck with one weapon. Once you get Striking on your main weapon, you aren't switching to a second weapon unless you have the gold to put Striking on a weapon you're not built to leverage.
Age of Ashes book 2 drops something like a dozen +1 striking weapons before you finally find a +2 weapon. If you're not using some of those for back up weapons, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, you're gonna choose a weapon to be your mainstay, but between weapon drops and the the WBL curve making purchasing below level items really cheap, it is not hard to get a back up weapon or two caught up pretty soon.
A Ranger chooses feats to support their style. The class is balanced around the class using Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot. Once you switch to a fighting approach where you can't use those abilities, .
Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown aren't mutually exclusive, and as I have pointed out to you before Quick Draw makes switch hitting optimal for a flurry ranger. You also don't NEED twin takedown. An elven curve blade will leverage forceful and flurry just fine.
you're at like Bard level effectiveness in combat, and that's assuming you're back up weapon has the same Runes as you're main weapon
Bards? Really? You have better better proficiency than bards at most levels and your Hunter's Edge at all levels. So extra damage, reduced MAP, or at worst an AC bonus to go with the superior hit points.
Also, this is so weird given the recent threads complaining about how much bards suck in melee...
I don't now what adventures you've been on,
Just the published ones.
but I've played with Rangers having their primary style be ineffective...and so did the Rangers. None of them were able to change it up or adapt. Didn't happen.
Were they as inflexible as you are? Because that could explain some things.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
Not past level 5.
The Fighter still has the +2 over the Ranger with their main weapon and equal to the Ranger with any other weapon. Flurry/Precision only work on your Prey, and you're chewing up attacks having to invoke it. A Fighter isn't having to pay that action cost. And with an AoO, the Fighter is always more effective in melee.
If you really want to be both ranged and melee, a Fighter can take the Knife group or the Axe group, get a Returning rune.
At level 9, the Fighter gets a feat called "Combat Flexibility" Enough said.
Age of Ashes book 2 drops something like a dozen +1 striking weapons before you finally find a +2 weapon.
Then EVERY class can have back up weapons and the Ranger has no advantage over anyone else.
Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown aren't mutually exclusive...
Neither are Double Slice and Point Blank Shot. I am not sure how you can argue the Ranger can take these two and the Fighter can't do the same thing.
Last I checked Sneak Attack works n both melee and ranged, as does Devise a Stratagem. So the Rogue and Investigator don't even have to double up on feats to leverage their schtick.
and as I have pointed out to you before Quick Draw makes switch hitting optimal for a flurry ranger. You also don't NEED twin takedown. An elven curve blade will leverage forceful and flurry...
Your solution is to force everyone to take a Feat/Skill that gives you access to elf weapons and then force them to use an Elven Curved Blade? Sorry that doesn't make the Ranger class the most adaptable of classes in combat. It makes one build flexible. Cherry picking a solutions that restrict one's build to solve the problem aren't proof of anything. Other classes can do the same thing, some with less investment.
So extra damage, reduced MAP, or at worst an AC bonus to go with the superior hit points.
Extra damage and reduced MAP are mutually exclusive. You don't get both until like 19.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Amaya/Polaris |
![Sarpini](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9529-Sarpini.jpg)
Captain Morgan wrote:Not past level 5.The Fighter still has the +2 over the Ranger with their main weapon and equal to the Ranger with any other weapon. Flurry/Precision only work on your Prey, and you're chewing up attacks having to invoke it. A Fighter isn't having to pay that action cost. And with an AoO, the Fighter is always more effective in melee.
If you really want to be both ranged and melee, a Fighter can take the Knife group or the Axe group, get a Returning rune.
At level 9, the Fighter gets a feat called "Combat Flexibility" Enough said.
Enough said? That's a feature that lets you pick one feat at the very beginning of the day, which doesn't have a ton to do with flexibility within fights. Also, it matters if Fighters have to use their less effective weapons because accuracy is their damage feature. Without it, Rangers (and every other martial) probably do more damage.
Also, I swear this is like the 3rd time I've seen you and Eraden get into an exchange of ideas about issues you have with the PF2 Ranger. Maybe I'm misremembering a name or two. At any rate, have you considered working together to make some homebrew tweaks to the class or something? I don't think Paizo themselves are going to change anything at this point, and I think such an effort could turn out nicely for likeminded people.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
MEATSHED |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain Morgan wrote:
Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown aren't mutually exclusive...Neither are Double Slice and Point Blank Shot. I am not sure how you can argue the Ranger can take these two and the Fighter can't do the same thing.
Last I checked Sneak Attack works n both melee and ranged, as does Devise a Stratagem. So the Rogue and Investigator don't even have to double up on feats to leverage their schtick.
I don't believe any of the hunter edges care about melee or ranged, you could argue outwit does, and both of those classes tend to require an action to set up their bonus damage, rogues need to either move around to flank or find another way to flatfoot their target and investigators needs to spend an action each turn to use devise. The ways around this (rogue's surprise attack and investigator's leads for example), usually require a bit of out of combat set up, which ranger's can also do with hunt prey by either seeing, hearing or tracking their target before the fight and choosing to hunt it.
Quote:and as I have pointed out to you before Quick Draw makes switch hitting optimal for a flurry ranger. You also don't NEED twin takedown. An elven curve blade will leverage forceful and flurry...Your solution is to force everyone to take a Feat/Skill that gives you access to elf weapons and then force them to use an Elven Curved Blade? Sorry that doesn't make the Ranger class the most adaptable of classes in combat. It makes one build flexible. Cherry picking a solutions that restrict one's build to solve the problem aren't proof of anything. Other classes can do the same thing, some with less investment.
I mean you don't need a curved blade, a shortsword or other agile weapon is something you can quick draw and attack with to benefit from flurry while still keeping your bow in hand, so when you need to get back to your bow you just stow it with an action and go back to using hunted shot.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Eraden |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm, Alfa/Polaris, this is the first time I've ever had any discourse with N N 959. You must be thinking of someone else entirely. I've only ever begun posting on these forums since a few days ago. I've been incredibly busy with work for the last couple of years but now that I have finally retired after 33 years of service, I can get back to the game I love so much (started playing D&D back when there was only tiny little booklets and a smile on everyone's face).
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Schreckstoff |
![Oracle](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1117-Oracle_90.jpeg)
I never liked Rangers being halfcasters stock it doesn't fit the fantasy of the lone combatant to me.
It being an option would be fine. Instead animal handling, hunting, sneaking, scouting protecting settlements from the wilds are the ranger to me.
I never liked favoured enemy or favoured terrain mechanics because they are very adventure dependent so making a ranger in PF1 or DND was a pain.
Don't know if the PF2 ranger is all that great but I like the hunt prey flavours. I like the focus spells as a thing between martials and halfcasters and from what I played, which isnt much, the class is pretty good.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Captain Morgan |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
![White Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-WhiteDragon_500.jpeg)
The Fighter still has the +2 over the Ranger with their main weapon and equal to the Ranger with any other weapon.
I'll take obvious points we are already aware of for 500, Alex.
Flurry/Precision only work on your Prey, and you're chewing up attacks having to invoke it. A Fighter isn't having to pay that action cost. And with an AoO, the Fighter is always more effective in melee.
Your hatred of Hunt Prey is astounding. Can you really not see how Rangers with feats like Hunted Shot and Quick Draw generally break even on actions on rounds they Hunt, and pull ahead when they don't? Because that is how the class works.
Attack of Opportunity is nice and all, but only if enemies are provoking it. A melee brute who charged the archer is unlikely to do that.
If you really want to be both ranged and melee, a Fighter can take the Knife group or the Axe group, get a Returning rune.
Oh, yeah, and then they have a 20 foot effective range. Man, that compares GREAT to the 200 foot no penalty range on a longbow, you're right.
At level 9, the Fighter gets a feat called "Combat Flexibility" Enough said.
I said "if we mean within the scope of a single fight." A feat you pick at the start of the day is not that.
AThen EVERY class can have back up weapons and the Ranger has no advantage over anyone else.
Every class can and should have a backup weapon, but the majority will suck at using them. They waste actions drawing them and lose
Neither are Double Slice and Point Blank Shot. I am not sure how you can argue the Ranger can take these two and the Fighter can't do the same thing.
Point Blank shot is a worse feat than Hunted Shot and only matters within a short range that the Ranger can just Quick Draw to a better weapon for. Double Slice is good, but available to rangers through archetypes and a fighter loses too many actions drawing weapons to pivot to it from a bow.
Last I checked Sneak Attack works n both melee and ranged, as does Devise a Stratagem. So the Rogue and Investigator don't even have to double up on feats to leverage their schtick.
Rogues are limited to 60 feet without penalty and can't utilize bombs, which the Rangers are arguably better at throwing then alchemists. Investigators lose their Strategem any time they need to attack a different target.
Your solution is to force everyone to take a Feat/Skill that gives you access to elf weapons and then force them to use an Elven Curved Blade? Sorry that doesn't make the Ranger class the most adaptable of classes in combat. It makes one build flexible. Cherry picking a solutions that restrict one's build to solve the problem aren't proof of anything. Other classes can do the same thing, some with less investment
Already covered by other people. Really, any melee weapon can work here, I just like the curve blade. A greatsword is going to be better for a precision ranger with good strength, for example.
Extra damage and reduced MAP are mutually exclusive. You don't get both until like 19.
I said "Or" dude. Not "and." It is the kind of subtle distinction that you overlook while you are retyping the same manifesto at every opportunity.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
fanatic66 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Seryzilian](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9258-BlackDragon2_500.jpeg)
To me this Ranger is possibly the best version of the Ranger I've seen in any edition. 5e's is rough. I liked 4e's ranger but it was mostly a DPS machine. 3.5/PF I remember only a little but the class felt meh. I love this version of the Ranger because it's a strong combatant that doesn't need spells. Most of my favorite fictional inspirations for Rangers lack spells so I'm glad to see this style finally supported outside of 4e. At the same time, it's cool that if you want magic, you can pick up Warden spells.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
1. The Ranger class has to abide by the same design template as all the other classes. This means the class can only have X+Y 1st level abilities, like every other class. Paizo didn't care if the class had special needs, they were committed to stuffing it in a box the same size everyone else's.
2. Paizo was committed to stoping the Ranger "dipping" that was rampant in PF1. This means they didn't want to front-load the class. In PF1, you could take 2 levels of Ranger and get a ton of the class' benefits. So the idea of giving stuff out at lvl 1 was something they didn't want to do. Personally, I can understand that choice. But jesus H xxxxxx, don't stick the class with Trackless Step. That feat is so utterly worthless, it truly feels insulting to people who play this class.
Because the class does not have special needs. EVERY class offloaded the majority of their skill competencies to skill feats. Rangers get more back and retained more as class exclusive feats than most, in fact.
As to losing a lot at level 1 and 2 to prevent dips, let's look at those levels in PF1.
1 - Favored Enemy, track, wild empathy
2 - Combat Style feat
Favored enemy was revamped into Hunt Prey, which is more flexible (since you don't have to commit to a single creature type which you cannot change) but does cost actions. It also covers fewer skills, though it does cover the most important ones and Outwit brings it back up to full (and gives an AC boost as a bonus). Track is simply rolled into Survival, which all rangers get, and rangers get the most ability to improve.
Wild empathy did become optional instead of locked in, and the combat feat was moved to the Hunter's Edge (and so now competes with full Favored Enemy instead of being on top of it).
In trade, rangers get a class feat at level 2 (not counting the one at 1, as PF1 got it as well) which they can use to either pick up wild empathy (resulting in a Ranger that is more or less the same as PF1, given the move towards more active class abilities instead of passive) or any other level 1 or 2 ranger ability. Some of the stuff PF1 rangers couldn't unlock until level 4, namely spells and their animal companion, are now available to select at level 1. You have to select them, which can feel like a loss, but is probably better to think of as being able to select from an even more flexible menu than PF1 archetypes offered.
I do agree with you regarding Trackless step though. It would make more sense for that to be a class feat, or even a skill feat, and for Swift Tracker, Favored Enemy, or Favored Terrain to have been the ranger ability at level 5.
I think the class could have been safely buffed with an additional level 1 or 2 feat baked into the class chassis (a skill based one by preference) and something stronger than trackless step at 5, but I don't think they lost nearly as much in the transition as you've been saying. I get you don't like Hunt Prey, but I truly think your dislike of that mechanic is coloring how much of a class identity rangers actually lost. The complaint holds more water at levels 4-12 in fact, when PF1 would be picking up Hunters Bond, Spells, additional favored enemies and terrains, 2 more combat style feats, Quarry, Camouflage, and Swift Tracker. All of that is still available in class feats (except Quarry, which is now just Hunt Prey), mostly at lower levels than the PF1 ranger got them in fact, but you only get 5 class feats over the course of those levels. The PF2 class abilities at those levels help a bit, but they are more generalized and thus less powerful than their pf1 counterparts.
Edit: Looking again at the class feats, if I was in charge of rebalancing rangers, I think I'd just give all Rangers Monster Hunter (or at least just the free Recall knowledge part, move the crit success to Monster Warden) and swap out Swift Tracker for Trackless step, and make trackless step a level 4 skill feat that requires Expert in Survival.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
I actually do appreciate being able to adapt in combat... But I happen to think the Ranger is the most adaptable martial in the game, if we mean within the scope of a single fight.
While it's fun to go back and forth about this, the reality is that this is highly subjective. The bar for adaptability is going to be different for each person.
In my experience in PFS and after both playing Rangers and playing with Rangers, this just isn't true. But, If you feel the class is more adaptive than others, more power to you.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
Because the class does not have special needs.
It does, and I think this was something Paizo overlooked or deliberately chose to ignore on account of wanting to stick to a formula.
I'm going to quote Eraden:
Primarily, first and foremost, the ranger needs to have one more introductory feat or ability that isn't purely combat oriented, included as part of what a ranger is.
What Eraden, and others like him, is trying to convey is that the Ranger was about more than combat. Unlike the other martials, the Ranger had a theme that was separate and independent from its combat mechanics. Eraden is recognizing that the PF1 Ranger and previous version, evoked this sense of the Ranger having a set of mechanics that really fleshed out its narrative.
In PF2, Paizo's class template does not leave enough room create that combat platform and address the narrative legacy of the class. Other classes don't have this problem. Their narrative is their combat focus. The Rogue and Investigator have more depth, but Paizo gave the Rogue more Skill upgrades.
With the Investigator, Paizo got it right. Paizo used Pursue a Lead to both aid the Investigator's purpose, and then gave another ability in DaS to assist in combat.
Hunt Prey feigns at that with +2 to Tracking/Seeking...but that only works on your Prey. I have NEVER seen that get used in PFS. It'd be one thing if Paizo allowed the +2 to be used TO find tracks, but you already have to have fount your Prey (which means you already have to have tracked it.)
In 10 or so years of PF1, I've never had to track something once we got in comba with it. If the creature happens to run away, the scenarios have NEVER asked you to track it. So I don't get what Paizo is thinking. Sure, maybe the +2 Perception might work for something that you tracked is hiding. And then it gets worse. That +2 to Seek doesn't worth with Blind-Fight or Sense the Unseen. Neither one of them leverage the bonus.
EVERY class offloaded the majority of their skill competencies to skill feats
Yes, but EVERY OTHER CLASS' narrative theme was expressed through combat skills. Paizo forces the player to buy all the spells, thematic, and combat choices with the same currency. This is what screws over the class from feeling "rangery.".
Rangers get more back and retained more as class exclusive feats than most, in fact.
That's exactly the problem. It was all put into the same Feat bucket and you don't have enough feats to get even 1/3 of it back.
As I said, I like double class feats for the ranger particularly.
That's right. If you're doubling the feats that a players gets, it totally solves the problems in terms of recapturing the "rangery' feeling and being adaptive in combat.
Favored enemy was revamped into Hunt Prey,
Actually, it wasn't. Favored Enemy/Terrain both still exist. Hunt Prey has nothing to do with Favored Enemy and is most likely inspired by the Studied Combat mechanic. Hunt Prey does not give any combat bonus, it gives a tracking/seeking bonus to something you've already designated as your target. Remember, the only Edge Paizo had during the Playtest, was Flurry, so the Ranger's combat schtick was Hunt Prey + Flurry. Flurry doesn't work anything like Favored Enemy. Hunt Prey was the mechanism Paizo devised to restrict the effectiveness of Flurry.
Track is simply rolled into Survival, which all rangers get, and rangers get the most ability to improve.
I'm pretty sure Rogues and Investigator and Druids can all keep pace with the Ranger's Survival. Druids are likely to outpace it given the Wisdom factor. In fact, I'm pretty sure any class could track as well as a Ranger if it wanted to. The Ranger might get a few extra benefits for tracking if it's willing to burn the feats.
I think the class could have been safely buffed with an additional level 1 or 2 feat baked into the class chassis
IMO, what the class really needs is purpose consistent with its theme. I still think that Paizo could have done that with Tracking. Make tracking more useful out of combat, and then led it lead to combat benefits, just like Pursue a Lead.
Theme aside, the Ranger feats are a mess. There are a lot of feats that conflict with other feats and don't compliment each other. Hunter's Aim, Deadly Aim, and other feats, undermine Flurry's need for more attacks. Twin Parry undermines Flurry. Skirmish Strike compels the Ranger to move into combat first, something the class does not have the AC to do. Animal companions require a ton of feats and are walking crit bags for bosses. The list goes on.
But as I said before, Paizo is not going to change any of it so long as they get posters who insist this is the best version of the Ranger. So this discussion is purely academic in my eyes.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
PossibleCabbage |
![Overworm](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/wormy.jpg)
What's interesting to me is that for other martials, I usually avoid the class feats that aren't primarily applicable to combat (at least at early levels). I think mentally I've siloed "class feats are combat feats, and skill/general/ancestry feats give everything else."
Like your champion is useful in combat because they are tough, can protect people, and can heal. They can be useful out of combat doing whatever else they choose with their non-champion feats.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
What's interesting to me is that for other martials, I usually avoid the class feats that aren't primarily applicable to combat (at least at early levels). I think mentally I've siloed "class feats are combat feats, and skill/general/ancestry feats give everything else."
Like your champion is useful in combat because they are tough, can protect people, and can heal. They can be useful out of combat doing whatever else they choose with their non-champion feats.
Exactly. But Paizo put things like Wild Empathy, Monster Hunter, Swift Tracker, Hazard Finder, etc, in the same combat bucket, and it screws the player out of recapturing them. From a PF1 perspective, the Ranger build experience is constantly one of "what am I willing to sacrifice" as to oppose to what am I gaining. It also undercuts the class from having a non-combat consistency. Because nearly of the Ranger's theme is optional, you can't rely on the class bringing anything to the party. Trackless step??? lol...
I think the thing that is really frustrating with what Paizo did is that it's not like the Ranger was overpowering in PF1. It's not like adding Wild Empathy or Hazard Finder displaces the Druid or the Rogue. It's like Paizo took these away just on principle, not because it actually improved the the game play.
But, if you've never played a Ranger before, then you probably don't experience this. I can imagine that for a player new to Pathfinder, the Ranger is a class with all these unique Ranger-themes and it is more of a positive experience to be able to sneak in a Wild Empathy. So I can see how Paizo might feel that they did the right thing.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
I'm not going to reply to all of that, since it's mostly opinions stated as facts, but this part:
Hunt Prey feigns at that with +2 to Tracking/Seeking...but that only works on your Prey. I have NEVER seen that get used in PFS. It'd be one thing if Paizo allowed the +2 to be used TO find tracks, but you already have to have fount your Prey (which means you already have to have tracked it.)
No, Hunt Prey does not give you the bonus to the initial check find tracks. You do, however, get it for every other survival check you make between that one and when you finally encounter your prey, including subsequent checks to find tracks if you lose the trail.
The Bounty Hunter dedication, however, improves that so that you do in fact get the bonus on the initial check. Not ranger exclusive, but it is still giving you what you're asking for. Swift Tracking is ranger exclusive, which is an even bigger bonus to using Survival to track.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
MEATSHED |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, what the class really needs is purpose consistent with its theme. I still think that Paizo could have done that with Tracking. Make tracking more useful out of combat, and then led it lead to combat benefits, just like Pursue a Lead.
Hunt prey already makes tracking lead to combat benefits, as you can track something, use hunt prey on it before combat and then start combat with hunt prey already on it.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
N N 959 wrote:IMO, what the class really needs is purpose consistent with its theme. I still think that Paizo could have done that with Tracking. Make tracking more useful out of combat, and then led it lead to combat benefits, just like Pursue a Lead.Hunt prey already makes tracking lead to combat benefits, as you can track something, use hunt prey on it before combat and then start combat with hunt prey already on it.
Hunt Prey doesn't lead to combat benefits. Hunt Prey is a requirement to get combat benefits. Perhaps the majority of Ranger combat feats require Hunt Prey.
Outside of combat (and this is the point I'm trying to make), Hunt Prey does, essentially, nothing. In PF1, you got an array of extra benefits against your Favored Enemy. There are really no hard coded benefits to tracking something outside of designating it Prey, something you have to do for combat. Tracking a creature doesn't tell you anything about it, doesn't give you any Initiative advantage for the party.
Theoretically, you could use Monster Hunter upon picking up tracks and calling it Prey, but that isn't a function of Hunt Prey, it's a feat you have to purchase. In addition, I haven't seen PFS GMs let me make Recall checks based on tracks.
A Ranger, or really anyone, who finds tracks should have a list of things they can lean about the creature, hard coded in the game. As a Ranger gets better at Survival, Tracking should convey more information and advantage.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
Theoretically, you could use Monster Hunter upon picking up tracks and calling it Prey, but that isn't a function of Hunt Prey, it's a feat you have to purchase. In addition, I haven't seen PFS GMs let me make Recall checks based on tracks.
That’s incorrect. It’s a function of Hunt Prey.
You designate a single creature as your prey and focus your attacks against that creature. You must be able to see or hear the prey, or you must be tracking the prey during exploration.
As to the rest, I don’t see why they wouldn’t let you roll recall knowledge, although that would be the Investigate activity instead of the Track activity, so that might be the basis of the call.
If you’re tracking, Follow the Leader should allow your entire party to roll survival for initiative. Aside from that, any other benefits to the group would probably require the Monster Hunter and Warden line.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, Hunt Prey does not give you the bonus to the initial check find tracks. You do, however, get it for every other survival check you make between that one and when you finally encounter your prey, including subsequent checks to find tracks if you lose the trail.
I've never seen or played a PFS scenario that required multiple tracking checks for something you can designate as Prey.
Granted, maybe when the Ranger starts encountering creatures who turn invisible, the +2 Perception might help, but that's still a combat-centric benefit.
Swift Tracking is ranger exclusive, which is an even bigger bonus to using Survival to track.
I doesn't give a "bigger bonus" to using Survival. It just lets you move at "Full Speed" or not have to make checks. The half-speed penalties that Paizo put on a number of Exploration Mode skill checks amounts to nothing. It has zero effect in any of the PFS games I've played. So Swift Tracker is really a trap option.
IME, tracking just isn't needed in PF. I almost took Experienced Tracker and then I caught myself and I've never seen a situation where it would have made any difference whatsoever.
Rangers ares simply forced to use Tracking in the hopes they can start combat with Hunt Prey already active, not because there's some other benefit or need.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
N N 959 wrote:Theoretically, you could use Monster Hunter upon picking up tracks and calling it Prey, but that isn't a function of Hunt Prey, it's a feat you have to purchase. In addition, I haven't seen PFS GMs let me make Recall checks based on tracks.That’s incorrect. It’s a function of Hunt Prey.
No, it's not incorrect. Monster Hunter is the only feat that allows you to get Recall Knowledge when you designate a Prey. Hunt Prey doesn't give you a Recall check. The Survival Skill doesn't give you a Recall Knowledge check. There are eight skills that explicitly allow Recall and Survival is not one of them.
Quote:You designate a single creature as your prey and focus your attacks against that creature. You must be able to see or hear the prey, or you must be tracking the prey during exploration.As to the rest, I don’t see why they wouldn’t let you roll recall knowledge, although that would be the Investigate activity instead of the Track activity, so that might be the basis of the call.
Per RAW, Monster Hunter would allow a check upon finding tracks. Most GMs balk at the idea of making a recall check off of just tracks as he Track feat doesn't allow it. If they do allow it, they want to impose a penalty, and then that would be worse than having to wait until you encounter the creature.
If you’re tracking, Follow the Leader should allow your entire party to roll survival for initiative. Aside from that, any other benefits to the group would probably require the Monster Hunter and Warden line.
Follow the Expert is something each person elects to do. No one is gong to Follow the Expert if he or she hasn't actually found any tracks. It also requires that the party members forgo any other activity, unless they have an ability to activities at once.
Maybe at really high levels, players may do that. I've never seen anyone even discuss it in PFS. But honestly, the same would be truth for Avoid Notice, and more PCs are likely to have a Dex bonus rather than a Wisdom bonus.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
shroudb |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AnimatedPaper wrote:No, Hunt Prey does not give you the bonus to the initial check find tracks. You do, however, get it for every other survival check you make between that one and when you finally encounter your prey, including subsequent checks to find tracks if you lose the trail.I've never seen or played a PFS scenario that required multiple tracking checks for something you can designate as Prey.
Granted, maybe when the Ranger starts encountering creatures who turn invisible, the +2 Perception might help, but that's still a combat-centric benefit.
Quote:Swift Tracking is ranger exclusive, which is an even bigger bonus to using Survival to track.I doesn't give a "bigger bonus" to using Survival. It just lets you move at "Full Speed" or not have to make checks. The half-speed penalties that Paizo put on a number of Exploration Mode skill checks amounts to nothing. It has zero effect in any of the PFS games I've played. So Swift Tracker is really a trap option.
IME, tracking just isn't needed in PF. I almost took Experienced Tracker and then I caught myself and I've never seen a situation where it would have made any difference whatsoever.
Rangers ares simply forced to use Tracking in the hopes they can start combat with Hunt Prey already active, not because there's some other benefit or need.
i don't know about pfs, but Tracking absolutely states that every hour you need to roll for it, in ADDITION to having to roll for it every time something may alter the tracks, like a simple switch of enviroment.
i disagree on "having to roll tracking to use survival for initiative". For starters rangers already have stellar perception so they don't really *need* to try to maximize it even more, but apart from that, in my games, either as a player or as a GM, because skills have been so much more streamlined in PF2 we use tracking all the time (unlike pf1 that was an extremely niche ability imo)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
i don't know about pfs, but Tracking absolutely states that every hour you need to roll for it, in ADDITION to having to roll for it every time something may alter the tracks, like a simple switch of enviroment.
And scenarios script around this. They typically have some "house-rule" for what happens for players who track.
i disagree on "having to roll tracking to use survival for initiative".
I'm not sure who you're disagreeiing with.
we use tracking all the time (unlike pf1 that was an extremely niche ability imo)
And what exactly does it do for anyone who doesn't have Hunt Prey?
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
shroudb |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:we use tracking all the time (unlike pf1 that was an extremely niche ability imo)And what exactly does it do for anyone who doesn't have Hunt Prey?
well.... you track people/creatures.
just earlier this week we used tracking to reverse follow the tracks of some ogres that have attacked us, finding the location of their lair with all this ensues (grabbed some extra loot and saved some villagers that were kept captive there as snacks for later on)
in another campaign we used tracking to find the den of some bandits which allowed us to ambush them in the middle of the night, making the encounter extremely easier.
For classes that gain extra benefits from tracking like ranger and investigator (one of who can name the target of the track his hunt prey and the other one can name him the target of his investigation) those are just extra benefits, the main benefit of tracking still is "finding your target or his home/den/cave/hideout/whatever"
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
Swift Tracking is ranger exclusive, which is an even bigger bonus to using Survival to track.I doesn't give a "bigger bonus" to using Survival. It just lets you move at "Full Speed" or not have to make checks. The half-speed penalties that Paizo put on a number of Exploration Mode skill checks amounts to nothing. It has zero effect in any of the PFS games I've played. So Swift Tracker is really a trap option.
That is a bonus. I didn't say numerical bonus, I just said bonus. You are better able to utilize the skill with that feat.
If it doesn't come up in your PFS games, it doesn't come up. In games where speed matters, it would make a difference.
I really understand that you want scenarios where only a ranger can succeed at the given tasks. Truly, I do. They are never going to do that; requiring a class is anathema to how they write PFS. Even giving a large bonus to certain classes is tantamount to requiring that class, so that will never happen either. That kind of writing can only really be done by a GM, who has the same set of players to work with.
AnimatedPaper wrote:No, it's not incorrect. Monster Hunter is the only feat that allows you to get Recall Knowledge when you designate a Prey. Hunt Prey doesn't give you a Recall check. The Survival Skill doesn't give you a Recall Knowledge check. There are eight skills that explicitly allow Recall and Survival is not one of them.N N 959 wrote:Theoretically, you could use Monster Hunter upon picking up tracks and calling it Prey, but that isn't a function of Hunt Prey, it's a feat you have to purchase. In addition, I haven't seen PFS GMs let me make Recall checks based on tracks.That’s incorrect. It’s a function of Hunt Prey.
Except I wasn't talking about recall knowledge, I was talking about a numerical bonus to tracking, which was the first part of the sentence in the quoted section. I only left the recall knowledge sentence in there because I addressed it in the next bit. So yes, where you say "Theoretically, you could use Monster Hunter upon picking up tracks and calling it Prey, but that isn't a function of Hunt Prey, it's a feat you have to purchase", that was the part I was saying was incorrect.
When you designate your prey while tracking a creature, you get the numerical bonus to tracking that creature, which you are supposed to be making each hour.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
Also, if you're going to such lengths to say that tracking isn't needed in PFS, describing how and why it is useless to niche in the most common scenarios that are played, maybe consider that is why the Ranger pivoted more towards combat and hunt prey (which apply to every scenario with combat in it) instead of relegating major parts of the ranger chassis to that niche activity.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
well.... you track people/creatures.
Is this homebrew?
In homebrew, sure, you can put in monsters to track and who cares if the PCs don't find the tracks, you just recycle them later. In the PFS content, there is essentially zero need to track. PFS can't depend on any one skill to advance the scenario, so things like tracking creatures back to their lair is never a requirement. If the scenario wants you to fight the creature, you fight it. If you're lucky the author will give you some bonus for tracking it, successfully, but most times you can't even track things you'd think were obvious. In fact, there's a PFS Bounty where you go after some creature and you don't even have make a Survival check to track it on foot. *shrug*
I will concede that there is a sightly higher effort by PFS scenarios to actually contemplate someone wanting to use Survival skills, to track, but the Ranger's Hunt Prey typically does nothing in those situations.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
N N 959 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a bonus. I didn't say numerical bonus, I just said bonus. You are better able to utilize the skill with that feat.
If it doesn't come up in your PFS games, it doesn't come up. In games where speed matters, it would make a difference.
You said "even bigger bonus." it gives no bonus. It lets you move at Full speed which, I repeat, NEVER comes up in PFS. Has anyone seen it come up in an AP?
Probably not, because the majority of the Exploration activities make you move at half speed and the entire party is not going to have the requisite feats to overcome that. Maybe at 20th level, but not much before that. So giving the Rangers an ability that lets them do something they can never take advantage of is giving the class "no bonus,", let alone an "even bigger bonus." LIke Trackless Step, it's best to just concede that one. But yes, if you get Survival to Legendary, now you get to track for free and do something else. Wow. Too bad there's no room in the average build for Swift Tracker...an ability that essentially does nothing.
Seriously though, Swift Tracker is just one of several poster children for how poorly the Ranger is put together. But hey, look on the bright side, crappy feats just make it easier to take the combat feats anyway, right?
I really understand that you want scenarios where only a ranger can succeed at the given tasks. Truly, I do.
Odd, because that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about or with what Eraden is talking about. So no, I don't think you've understood me at all.
They are never going to do that; requiring a class is anathema to how they write PFS. Even giving a large bonus to certain classes is tantamount to requiring that class, so that will never happen either. That kind of writing can only really be done by a GM, who has the same set of players to work with.
Yup, that's why having Track only be good for tracking, works against the Ranger. This is compounded by feats that let you do something "better" in a way that really amounts to nothing....and then requiring players to pay a feat tax for it.
Look, if you want to give the Ranger weak/limited feats, then bake them into the class, like they did with Trackless Step. Swift Tracker at level 1 is going to have zero impact on the class' effectiveness.
When you designate your prey while tracking a creature, you get the numerical bonus to tracking that creature, which you are supposed to be making each hour.
PFS, by and large, hand waves a lot of the tedious type of repetitive checks As I said before, if Survival is contemplated by a scenario, they house-rule it so it's usually one just one check. Granted, I've seen more use of Survival in three levels of PFS 2, then I've seen in 10 years of PF1, but essentially none of these are benefited by Hunt Prey. So the Ranger isn't any better off, as most of it is just finding those initial tracks.
Also, if you're going to such lengths to say that tracking isn't needed in PFS, describing how and why it is useless to niche in the most common scenarios that are played, maybe consider that is why the Ranger pivoted more towards combat and hunt prey (which apply to every scenario with combat in it) instead of relegating major parts of the ranger chassis to that niche activity.
Valid point, except....the Ranger didn't "pivot" from tracking in PF1. The Ranger pivoted from having a chassis that had thematic functionality: Wild Empathy, Endurance, Favored Terrain, Wild Stride (at 7, not 11), Camouflage , Hide in Plain Sight, etc. You got all of those in addition to your combat benefits and in addition to spells, AND an animal companion that only needed one Feat to make viable. In PFS, you've got to pay for all that, and it's all weaker and less effective. Oh, and let's not forget Rangers actually got a significant boost to finding tracks, via the Track feat. Sorry, a flat +2 to our Prey and only your Prey, after you've already found its tracks is just laughable. It just makes no sense.
Other things I can kind of understand, that...not so much. It only makes sense if the person who designed the class, didn't really give a crap about the class. or really disliked everything about it in PF1. If that's true, it would explain a lot.
The Ranger got nerfed, not because it needed it, but because Paizo forced the class into the same design template that everyone else had. But all those extra things didn't make the Ranger any better at combat, just made it feel like a Ranger. I think Paizo simply failed to understand the impact of stripping that stuff and forcing players to buy them back in lieu things to be passable at combat. Sorry, the idea that you only need TT or HS to be good at combat is just simply propaganda (and I know you aren't saying that). Even if that were true numerically, a player needs to feel like martial character is getting better at combat, beyond increasing BAB, and that only comes with class Feats dedicated to combat.
Getting back to your point, I wanted Paizo to change what tracking did so that it had far more non-combat purpose. I won't get into it again because it's not going to happen. But no, just making Rangers better at tracking would do nothing if tracking continued to be what it is.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
shroudb |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
shroudb wrote:well.... you track people/creatures.Is this homebrew?
In homebrew, sure, you can put in monsters to track and who cares if the PCs don't find the tracks, you just recycle them later. In the PFS content, there is essentially zero need to track. PFS can't depend on any one skill to advance the scenario, so things like tracking creatures back to their lair is never a requirement. If the scenario wants you to fight the creature, you fight it. If you're lucky the author will give you some bonus for tracking it, successfully, but most times you can't even track things you'd think were obvious. In fact, there's a PFS Bounty where you go after some creature and you don't even have make a Survival check to track it on foot. *shrug*
I will concede that there is a sightly higher effort by PFS scenarios to actually contemplate someone wanting to use Survival skills, to track, but the Ranger's Hunt Prey typically does nothing in those situations.
it is the rules.
If it's the "content of pfs scenario" that's hindering a skill, then the problem isn't with the skill, is with the scenarios.
(which have to be set in specific ways to accomodate the randomness of groups of pfs)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
AnimatedPaper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Paper Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio1.jpg)
AnimatedPaper wrote:You said "even bigger bonus." it gives no bonus. It lets you move at Full speed which, I repeat, NEVER comes up in PFS. Has anyone seen it come up in an AP?That is a bonus. I didn't say numerical bonus, I just said bonus. You are better able to utilize the skill with that feat.
If it doesn't come up in your PFS games, it doesn't come up. In games where speed matters, it would make a difference.
Yes actually. Follow the leader doesn't hinder your speed, so having the party tail along behind the ranger is useful. As a plus, if the ranger rolls low and fails one of their checks to keep on the trail, usually one of the other members does at least succeed. The trade off is that they can't use Avoid Notice, Detect Magic, or Defend.
The free stride when entering combat is more useful than the speed boost though, and is probably how they justified it to themselves as a class feat. I think that was the wrong call, and that it needs more to actually be worth picking up as a class feat.
To re-emphasize, I agree with you that overall, it is a low power feat, way too low to be a 6th level class feat. I actually had forgotten it was so high (I houseruled it to level 1 basically first thing, and took out the Experienced Tracker requirement), so I WILL also concede that it should just be a ribbon rather than a feat, since I clearly thought so a year ago. It would be one of the ones I would hope would become a Ranger exclusive skill feat (others: wild empathy, snare specialist, and I want to say Favored Terrain too, but I'm less sure on that one). Or even just combined with Experienced Tracker and be done with it, now that Bounty hunter is around and any character can pick up Hunt Prey if they like.