Do melee Ranger work with an Animal Companion?

[N N 959]

Captain Morgan wrote:

That is a house rule though, which is surprising since I thought you played PFS. The Interact action refers to retrieving a singular object, not multiple.

I disagree that it's a house rule. Has Paizo actually FAQ'd this?

Interact p.470 wrote:

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain.

Interact allows me to use both hands. If both hands can grab one object, there's no reason why each hand can't grab a different object in the same square. Do you required two Interacts for someone to push open a double door? Would you require two Interacts to pick up a fork and knife? Does it take two Interacts to put your hands in your pockets?

Rules interpretations aside, Allowing someone to wield a two-handed weapon with one Interact but not two weapons with one Interact, would heavily penalize TWF Rangers/Rogues. I don't think that's intended.

One of PF2's strengths is breaking away from the strict formalism that often paralyzed PF1 with regards to the rules. And yes, I play almost exclusively PFS and no GM has, as of yet, tried to prevent me from drawing two weapons with one Interact.

Quickdraw, however, does not appear to allow two weapons.

YMMV

[Captain Morgan]

Quote:

Unfortunately my idea of an Animal Companion is not just a stat block to provide flanking with the occasional attack. I want my offense to be equal part myself and equal part my companion. That’s just my “class fantasy” though.

4th Edition D&D actually had a really good beast master with synchronized attacks where you made an attack and so did your companion all in the same power. It really felt like you were a team and animal companion was a meaningful part of your character... not just a road block to provide you with advantage. That sounds like a caster spamming the help action from it’s useless minion :\

There is design space open to create such a class; it just isn't really a thing yet. I'd expect the Summoner to be a better fit, or maybe the Hunter if they bother making it again. It is also going to be a more complicated character to play, which is why it will be better suited to a splat book than the core rules. (If you look carefully, you may notice that all of the class's in the Advanced Player's Guides are meant for, well, advanced players.)

You can't really pull this off with an optional feat on an already perfectly functional class, though. Not without getting into some gross imbalances like PF1 had. My friend built a tiger there that was a better melee combatant than the party's slayer, and my friend was still an Oracle with full spell casting progression and some reasonable melee abilities of their own. I had to nerf the tiger to let other characters shine.

Quote:

If I wanted someone to just stand there... why wouldn’t I just attack a creature another melee party member was attacking?

Because you won't be able to all the time, really. Sometimes your ally will be focusing on a different enemy. Sometimes they aren't fast enough to reach the same enemy. Sometimes their flank space will already be taken by the rogue.

Also, you should look into the Support Benefits more, which make the animals stats not really matter but ave the flavor you're looking for.

[Captain Morgan]

N N 959 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

That is a house rule though, which is surprising since I thought you played PFS. The Interact action refers to retrieving a singular object, not multiple.

I disagree that it's a house rule. Has Paizo actually FAQ'd this?

Interact p.470 wrote:

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain.

Interact allows me to use both hands. If both hands can grab one object, there's no reason why each hand can't grab a different object in the same square. Do you required two Interacts for someone to push open a double door? Would you require two Interacts to pick up a fork and knife? Does it take two Interacts to put your hands in your pockets?

Rules interpretations aside, Allowing someone to wield a two-handed weapon with one Interact but not two weapons with one Interact, would heavily penalize TWF Rangers/Rogues. I don't think that's intended.

One of PF2's strengths is breaking away from the strict formalism that often paralyzed PF1 with regards to the rules. And yes, I play almost exclusively PFS and no GM has, as of yet, tried to prevent me from drawing two weapons with one Interact.

Quickdraw, however, does not appear to allow two weapons.

YMMV

You use your hand or hands to manipulate *an* object or the terrain. Singular. That's the same language Quick Draw uses. I think ruling it can draw two weapons is perfectly fine, especially in the context of a game where reloading a crossbow is a single action and so is battle Medicine. But the same arguments apply to Quick Draw. You can Quick Draw a greatsword with two hands after all.

I'm not saying it should take two actions to open double doors, but by RAW it does, at least if each has a handle you need to grab. You can make a case for opening two doors that just need to be shoved by RAW.

And don't sleep on Quickdraw bombs, BTW. Rangers do it very well, and there is a reason they are specifically cited under the alchemist multiclass and bomb snares are a thing.

[Mythraine]

N N 959 wrote:

Quote:

2) Strike QD(blade)+ Strike QD(blade) + TT. This deals optimal damage on a flurry ranger without a pet, and is the same as TT + Strike + Strike.

But it's not. My Ranger fights with longsword + Light weapon (agile). So if I start with two weapons, my TT is doing LS + LW. The next two strikes are with the agile weapon to leverage Flurry and MAP. In your example, TT comes at the end of the combo and TT requires a Ranger use two different weapons. So one of those attacks is at -6 instead of -4.

Where does it say TT requires two different weapons?

The Requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand." They can be the same type of weapon. e.g. two sawtooth sabres.

[N N 959]

Captain Morgan wrote:

You use your hand or hands to manipulate *an* object or the terrain.

Correct. That can be read to indicate your hand or hands can each manipulate "an" object. It does not say the "same" object. Now, maybe that's what they meant. But I read that as each hand can manipulate an object. So far, PFS GMs have not had an issue with it.

Quote:

Singular. That's the same language Quick Draw uses. ****** But the same arguments apply to Quick Draw. You can Quick Draw a greatsword with two hands after all.

It's not the same, and hands are irrelvevant for QD.

Quick Draw p.172 wrote:

You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.

QD is explicit, you draw "a" weapon and strike with "that" weapon. It does not reference hands or hands. So the wording is not the same and I believe the intent is clear in QD that it is intended to only work with one weapon, irrespective of hands.

Quote:

I think ruling it[Quick Draw] can draw two weapons is perfectly fine, especially in the context of a game where reloading a crossbow is a single action and so is battle Medicine.

Well, as written, I can't agree. I would not expect PFS GMs to allow it. I do hope that Paizo will errata QD to allow two weapons to be drawn, especially if one has TT. Even better if you can QD and TT/HS in one action, but I don't expect that to happen.

[N N 959]

Mythraine wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Quote:

2) Strike QD(blade)+ Strike QD(blade) + TT. This deals optimal damage on a flurry ranger without a pet, and is the same as TT + Strike + Strike.

But it's not. My Ranger fights with longsword + Light weapon (agile). So if I start with two weapons, my TT is doing LS + LW. The next two strikes are with the agile weapon to leverage Flurry and MAP. In your example, TT comes at the end of the combo and TT requires a Ranger use two different weapons. So one of those attacks is at -6 instead of -4.

Where does it say TT requires two different weapons?

The Requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand." They can be the same type of weapon. e.g. two sawtooth sabres.

If you have a weapon in each hand, you have two different weapons, as in, you are not attacking with the one weapon, twice. TT does not allow you to attack with one weapon twice, you need a weapon in each hand, which is having two different weapons. You're reading that as having two different types of weapons, which is not what I am saying.