It's counter-intuitive that a feat removing ranged penalties or adding ranged damage for a Fighter who's constructing their build around archery would not be helpful, but as I was recently building a Fighter archer, that was my conclusion. I'm building around a Composite Longbow (Volley 30'). I know there are scenarios where you can use Point Blank Shot to get +2 damage that may be worth it, but that's not my scenario.
Point Blank Shot does one of two things: 1) Remove the within-30' -2 to hit penalty from Volley, or 2) +2 damage on non-Volley attacks. It costs 1 Action to enter the stance.
For my build, I could only potentially get benefit from 1) Removing the -2 attack penalty. Now, when I think about how this plays out, I can't see myself ever wasting an action to enter the stance. I would only need it if I want to shoot at a target within 30', but if there's a target that close, I could eliminate the penalty by taking a Stride for 1 action. Not only does that remove the -2 penalty, but it puts me in a safer firing position.
I know the argument at this point is, yes but if you invest that 1 action on the Stance, you can fire without the penalty or without moving, and in later rounds, that could be beneficial... except that's not true, because I'll try to Stride to be beyond 30' anyway for safety reasons. Then I think the argument becomes, if you're ever cornered, you're going to be in bad shape. I think that's fair. You can't always win.
End rant.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't always get a clear shot (or even any shot at all) from over 30' away, so the 'stride away' action may not be a practical option.
Beyond that, attacks at -10 MAP are basically "hoping for a natural 20", so sacrificing one of them on your first round to eliminate your Volley penalty for the rest of the battle is generally a good (if somewhat annoying) deal. Even if you use a shortbow, the +2 damage bonus probably outweighs the attack you lost (that almost certainly was going to miss anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was considering going Fighter for an arcane archer build I'm working on, but I ended up liking the idea of getting a shifting rune on my longbow better than taking a feat to remove the volley penalty. It felt cooler to switch bows with magic than to spend a feat to make some math problem go away.
or you could do both so if you are far away you are good but if you are up close you take no penelty and after shifting the bow you get +2 dmg win win
While I respect the rant, you could just wield a shortbow.
True, however, once you get your first rune, 2d8 (9) matches 2d6+2 (9). So that's a waste of a feat.
I was considering going Fighter for an arcane archer build I'm working on, but I ended up liking the idea of getting a shifting rune on my longbow better than taking a feat to remove the volley penalty. It felt cooler to switch bows with magic than to spend a feat to make some math problem go away.Unfortunately:
Shifting Rune:
Usage: etched onto a melee weaponand
Effect The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield. The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply.
Yah I almost dont see the point of restricting just to melee weapons but I can understand there may be edge cases where being able to shift to ranged from melee might be an issue but so far I personally havent found any. I allow my players to do shifting to ranged.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
except that's not true, because I'll try to Stride to be beyond 30' anyway for safety reasons.
If your plan is to always keep more than 30 feet from your opponents then Point Blank Shot is, indeed, all but useless (it still has some value on the occassions where you can't enact that plan as you yourself admit).
But to go from "Point blank shot is useless for MY fighter given MY planned method of playing him" to "point blank shot" sucks is rather arrogant. There are lots of other ways to play a fighter archer and, for many of them, point blank shot does indeed have considerable value.
And what if you want to use Triple Shot to down an opponent as quickly as possible?
And what if you want to use Triple Shot to down an opponent as quickly as possible?
That's certainly a trade off. I wouldn't make the choice to do three attacks if it left me that close to being attacked by melee in return, not with this build. That's why this character is an archer vs a melee specialist. He doesn't want to take hits. So you're right that in that case, you would not be in the optimum position to do all three attacks, I still don't think the feat is any good, and we're both brushing aside the fact that you have to spend 1 action to get into the stance at some point which is costing you a shot.
If I wanted to mix it up within 30' of enemies, I would do much better to use a heavy shield and d8+4 or a d12+4 rather than hang back and do d8+2.
Someone above mentioned it's arrogant to make this case. It's not arrogant to want to play a character who uses a composite longbow and dismiss feats that don't aid that build. It's a character choice and probably 'the' classic Fighter archer build, so it's not like I'm painting an edge case here. Point Blank Shot doesn't help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The long bow is a much more situational weapon in PF2 than it was in any other D&D game. Point blank shot is pretty much the only way to play an archer that is always going to be able to use their bow effectively in combat, especially in any kind of prewritten APs and dungeon crawls, because a -2 penalty to attack rolls is a massive impediment to DPR when you are unable to maintain your distance.
Plane, if you are playing this character in PFS or in a prewritten AP, check with your GM about whether or not you are going to be able to find the space to use your longbow or you are going to end up incredibly frustrated in more than half of the encounters you find yourself in.
Edit: You are right that it is a much better weapon than a short bow, damage wise, as you level up, but without the ability to mitigate the penalty when you are having to fire at targets close to you, that bonus won't really help you.
Unicore, it is a fair point to claim that in constricted close quarters, a longbow archer will experience their -2 penalty if they insist on firing arrows. This isn't intended to be the best build in all situations. I think we all accept there will be scenarios where we don't shine. I'm fine with that. An inability to get more than 30' away from a foe seems unlikely to occur in "more than half of encounters" though. Even in a small 40' square room, firing at someone in even a center square without the -2 penalty can be achieved by moving 10' back into the hallway or exterior of the room.
If getting >30' away still isn't impossible, then in that case, insisting on using the bow may not be the best option. If you're forced to fight within 30', you may as well switch to melee and use your Exacting Strike for melee since it works for all Strikes. Halberd for d10's + full strength from behind the hit-takers will be more effective, or short sword (finesse/agile, so still max Dex attack bonus) and shield.
Forced to fight within 30', sticking to ranged with this build doesn't make sense, so I still wouldn't waste a feat on PBS. I'm open to ideas if someone can tell me how it would still be more effective to fight with a bow within 30' over the above options.
Fair points about action economy and main weapon runes, shroudb. I'll give it another look. This build achieves a 30' Stride though, so 1 one of those will cost many foes 2 actions to catch up with. The build also assumes there are at least a couple melee party members to keep between you and the enemy, so this isn't intended to rely on kiting.
Where trying to maintain bow for use in "melee range" breaks down for me is ranged is inferior to melee in P2. It's no contest. So isn't that a downside that PBS can't address? I'm still up for trying and exceling in some situations, because this guy doesn't like getting hurt. It's the reason behind the choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, when I was playing a glaive-using fighter with Exacting Strike in Fall of Plaguestone, I got to use it exactly twice, and it didn't make a difference in a single case. Not something I'd take again in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a few games with a Longbow Archer. He was always having maluses to hit, PBS was his only option not to have some.
Rooms are no big flat places with nothing in them. There are pillars, your allies, corners and all this things. Shooting at a target more than 30ft. away from you with no cover is the exception, not the rule. PBS is a staple for a Longbow Fighter.
And the Longbow Fighters attacking from far away don't help anyone. Fighters have a good bunch of hit points + good armor proficiencies. Thanks to AoOs being rare, you will be more useful to your party by adding a target with good defenses than by running away behind the Wizard (who has 30ft. of range during his early carreer).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone above mentioned it's arrogant to make this case. It's not arrogant to want to play a character who uses a composite longbow and dismiss feats that don't aid that build. It's a character choice and probably 'the' classic Fighter archer build, so it's not like I'm painting an edge case here. Point Blank Shot doesn't help.
I don't know that I'd use the word arrogant, but your thread title is "point blank shot sucks for a fighter archer," when actually it should be "point blank shot isn't appealing to my build and play style." Saying a feat sucks is alarmist and kind of insulting to the Paizo staff, so it is generally in poor taste. Here, it also pretty clearly isn't the case, which makes you look kind of silly to boot. Especially when it is a 1st level feat with very little competition-- you can't even take archetype feats yet. You're comparing it to... Exacting Strike and Combat Assessment, I guess? Which are fine and all but not archery specific.
Also, as a fighter, you still get 10HP a level, heavy armor proficiency, armor specialization, and like the third best AC progression in the game. Archer's don't even mind the speed penalty of heavy armor as much. So your concern over getting hit is a little perplexing. Maybe that's just a character choice, but if so that kind of adds to the feeling that your title was in poor taste.
Also, pointblank stance is one action at the start of a fight, as opposed to action(s) every round to keep moving out of range if someone is actually coming after you. There's no real opportunity cost opportunity cost until mobile shot or multishot stance come into play, but since one of those is for firing in melee and the other means you can't move away, I'm not sure either of those would suit your style either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also note that Fighter weapon Mastery applies to one weapon group. Switching to a halberd at level 5, assuming you have a STR of 18 at that point and a Dex of 19, is giving yourself a -2 to attack rolls with your melee weapon, and denying you the benefit of Crit Specialization. So in addition to wasting actions switching weapons, you will be at least 2 points of accuracy behind between levels 5 and 20.
Several good points coming up. I think the case has been made that if you are playing in a campaign where it's unlikely that your battles will have space greater than 30' for you to fire arrows, this isn't a good build. It wasn't my goal to showcase the most potent build. It's to call out PBS as a poor feat. I didn't mean to insult Paizo in the process. Suck is probably harsh, and I could have said it was inferior and left it at that. Good point.
However, I still think it's inferior in a campaign like this. If you are that close to the enemy in most fights, you should use a d12 or d8 and shield. There's no point forcing range with PBS where your propulsive damage will never be on par with the d12 OR the sword/board, and your defence will never be as good as the shield wearer. PBS doesn't bring the bow on par with either, and the risk of being in melee isn't mitigated. It's inferior, because bow is inferior by design. I've never attempted to make the case that PBS doesn't knock off the -2 to let you fight with bows in melee range. It does. My point is: that's not a useful archery style. Two hands to do d8 + 1/2 str, no defence enhancement, and you're at the same risk as the melee-ers? How is PBS valid as a feat?
However, if most of the time you will have the option to fire from >30' away:
The math of Exacting Strike is superior to Triple Strike.
It's available at L1.
It works for all Strikes so if you really want to melee, it's there.
There's another thread with links to the calculations that prove the math. It's far and away a superior feat than PBS, provided you are playing a campaign where it's possible to move 30' from your foes. I can't argue with your personal experiences, only the math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the move. Fact is the shortbow is really the weapon for short range combat. Normally you wouldn't even be able to use an English Longbow as some kind of portable, close combat ranged weapon. For years D&D made the lonbbow the standard archer weapon because it was mechanically superior to the shortbow in every way, something that should not be the case.
The shortbow is the standard weapon of the mobile archer mounted or on foot. It should be a better weapon for close range combat. Paizo is finally making that happen and someone views the feat to help that as useless.
I don't agree at all. I'm glad they finally made the shortbow a weapon with an advantage. If you want to be able to fire in tight dungeons, then you need the bow better built for that environment.
Legolas used a shortbow in Lord of the Rings. The English Longbow is 6 feet tall and hard to use. Players are lucky you can use it in standard combat at all. It should be more like a crossbow firing once a round or so.
Several good points coming up. I think the case has been made that if you are playing in a campaign where it's unlikely that your battles will have space greater than 30' for you to fire arrows, this isn't a good build. It wasn't my goal to showcase the most potent build. It's to call out PBS as a poor feat. I didn't mean to insult Paizo in the process. Suck is probably harsh, and I could have said it was inferior and left it at that. Good point.
However, I still think it's inferior in a campaign like this. If you are that close to the enemy in most fights, you should use a d12 or d8 and shield. There's no point forcing range with PBS where your propulsive damage will never be on par with the d12 OR the sword/board, and your defence will never be as good as the shield wearer. PBS doesn't bring the bow on par with either, and the risk of being in melee isn't mitigated. It's inferior, because bow is inferior by design. I've never attempted to make the case that PBS doesn't knock off the -2 to let you fight with bows in melee range. It does. My point is: that's not a useful archery style. Two hands to do d8 + 1/2 str, no defence enhancement, and you're at the same risk as the melee-ers? How is PBS valid as a feat?
However, if most of the time you will have the option to fire from >30' away:
The math of Exacting Strike is superior to Triple Strike.
It's available at L1.
It works for all Strikes so if you really want to melee, it's there.There's another thread with links to the calculations that prove the math. It's far and away a superior feat than PBS, provided you are playing a campaign where it's possible to move 30' from your foes. I can't argue with your personal experiences, only the math.
I think more players should build switch-hitting characters. They are very easy to build in this game. There is almost zero reason to not be able to do both in PF2. Too many folks have that PF1 mentality that they somehow need to always use their bow rather than go melee sometimes. It think that sticking yourself in a single role mentality doesn't take advantage of PF2 well. Get a melee weapon and keep it up with your bow, hop into melee on occasion. That will make you extremely versatile as a martial.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
However, if most of the time you will have the option to fire from >30' away:
The math of Exacting Strike is superior to Triple Strike.
It's available at L1.
It works for all Strikes so if you really want to melee, it's there.There's another thread with links to the calculations that prove the math. It's far and away a superior feat than PBS, provided you are playing a campaign where it's possible to move 30' from your foes.
...
So, what you are saying is Exacting Strike is better than PBS if you are never shooting in Point-Blank range? Shocking...
What sort of campaign are you expecting where most encounters will have 35'+ clear lines of fire? You've made mention of 'this sort of campaign' but unless I missed it, you never spelled out what you actually mean by this...
I think more players should build switch-hitting characters. They are very easy to build in this game. There is almost zero reason to not be able to do both in PF2. Too many folks have that...Several good points coming up. I think the case has been made that if you are playing in a campaign where it's unlikely that your battles will have space greater than 30' for you to fire arrows, this isn't a good build. It wasn't my goal to showcase the most potent build. It's to call out PBS as a poor feat. I didn't mean to insult Paizo in the process. Suck is probably harsh, and I could have said it was inferior and left it at that. Good point.
However, I still think it's inferior in a campaign like this. If you are that close to the enemy in most fights, you should use a d12 or d8 and shield. There's no point forcing range with PBS where your propulsive damage will never be on par with the d12 OR the sword/board, and your defence will never be as good as the shield wearer. PBS doesn't bring the bow on par with either, and the risk of being in melee isn't mitigated. It's inferior, because bow is inferior by design. I've never attempted to make the case that PBS doesn't knock off the -2 to let you fight with bows in melee range. It does. My point is: that's not a useful archery style. Two hands to do d8 + 1/2 str, no defence enhancement, and you're at the same risk as the melee-ers? How is PBS valid as a feat?
However, if most of the time you will have the option to fire from >30' away:
The math of Exacting Strike is superior to Triple Strike.
It's available at L1.
It works for all Strikes so if you really want to melee, it's there.There's another thread with links to the calculations that prove the math. It's far and away a superior feat than PBS, provided you are playing a campaign where it's possible to move 30' from your foes. I can't argue with your personal experiences, only the math.
That's not really a good idea for a Fighter unless you pick up a dedication that boosts your proficiency with other weapons, due to how their own weapon proficiency scaling works. Not to mention that you want to find some way to get Quick Draw, since you'll end up using a few actions stowing and drawing your various weapons.
...I think more players should build switch-hitting characters. They are very easy to build in this game. There is almost zero reason to not be able to do bothSeveral good points coming up. I think the case has been made that if you are playing in a campaign where it's unlikely that your battles will have space greater than 30' for you to fire arrows, this isn't a good build. It wasn't my goal to showcase the most potent build. It's to call out PBS as a poor feat. I didn't mean to insult Paizo in the process. Suck is probably harsh, and I could have said it was inferior and left it at that. Good point.
However, I still think it's inferior in a campaign like this. If you are that close to the enemy in most fights, you should use a d12 or d8 and shield. There's no point forcing range with PBS where your propulsive damage will never be on par with the d12 OR the sword/board, and your defence will never be as good as the shield wearer. PBS doesn't bring the bow on par with either, and the risk of being in melee isn't mitigated. It's inferior, because bow is inferior by design. I've never attempted to make the case that PBS doesn't knock off the -2 to let you fight with bows in melee range. It does. My point is: that's not a useful archery style. Two hands to do d8 + 1/2 str, no defence enhancement, and you're at the same risk as the melee-ers? How is PBS valid as a feat?
However, if most of the time you will have the option to fire from >30' away:
The math of Exacting Strike is superior to Triple Strike.
It's available at L1.
It works for all Strikes so if you really want to melee, it's there.There's another thread with links to the calculations that prove the math. It's far and away a superior feat than PBS, provided you are playing a campaign where it's possible to move 30' from your foes. I can't argue with your personal experiences, only the math.
You will only be slightly less effective with another weapon. You will have an easier time flanking. Get your full strength bonus. And no volley penalty. All should make up for dropping your weapon as a free action and drawing a sword.
Or you could just hold a sword in one hand and your bow in the other. No need to use a two-handed weapon.
That's what I mean by getting out of the PF1 mentality of stuck in a single role. You won't do substantially less damage using a one-handed weapon rather than your ideal bow if you have a melee magic weapon that keeps up.
In PF1 if you built an archer and focused on archery, the divide switching weapons was immense. You spent so many feats on archery that switching to melee meant an huge drop off in damage. But fighter an easily build to go melee and martial. He could get Double Shot and Double Slice or Power Attack easily. He switches he will only have a -2 to attack for a 1 or 2 points in strength. His damage won't drop off much.
I highly suggest people try it.
Switch it up. It's far easier to do in PF2 than in PF1 with not nearly as much downside as people think it will be. I encourage my archer players to be switch hitters, get out of that pure optimization mentality as PF1 damage is not as wide a gap between optimal and slightly less optimal as before, especially when circumstances change.
|
|
What sort of campaign are you expecting where most encounters will have 35'+ clear lines of fire? You've made mention of 'this sort of campaign' but unless I missed it, you never spelled out what you actually mean by this...
I'm not the OP but in a great many wilderness campaigns it is the case that a longbow user will very, very frequently be able to keep 30+ feet away from his enemies. Not always but definitely most of the time.
Assuming, of course, he has melee characters to hide behind :-).
I really wish I could combine Point Blank Shot with Monastic Archery before level 20 :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is pretty much the exact opposite of Deriven's
Switch Hitting, especially for characters like rangers, was super easy in PF1 and a pretty valuable tactic given how risky firing in melee was in PF1. Switch Hitter ranger was almost just their default build for a while.
In PF2? Having fully upgraded weapons are much more important, so you need to invest a lot more. Having fully upgraded stats is much more important for hitting too (so you're getting less out of the biggest melee weapons). The incentive for needing to switch is down too because AoOs are less common and the action economy of switching weapons is so much worse.
Again, I could maybe see doing it on a rogue or ranger reasonably well, but Fighter in particular is especially bad at it since you're eating an extra -2 to hit for using an off-type weapon too.
So you're spending a ton of extra money and feats all to maybe do a little bit more damage sometimes, except not really because you're tanking your accuracy and spending actions juggling weapons.
You can probably make it work if you really want to, but to call it something every single ranged character should do is a massive stretch.
The long bow is a much more situational weapon in PF2 than it was in any other D&D game. Point blank shot is pretty much the only way to play an archer that is always going to be able to use their bow effectively in combat, especially in any kind of prewritten APs and dungeon crawls, because a -2 penalty to attack rolls is a massive impediment to DPR when you are unable to maintain your distance.
Daikyu is an option for the cost of an ancestry feat. You give up propulsive and deadly d10. Maybe not so good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is pretty much the exact opposite of Deriven's
Switch Hitting, especially for characters like rangers, was super easy in PF1 and a pretty valuable tactic given how risky firing in melee was in PF1. Switch Hitter ranger was almost just their default build for a while.
In PF2? Having fully upgraded weapons are much more important, so you need to invest a lot more. Having fully upgraded stats is much more important for hitting too (so you're getting less out of the biggest melee weapons). The incentive for needing to switch is down too because AoOs are less common and the action economy of switching weapons is so much worse.
Again, I could maybe see doing it on a rogue or ranger reasonably well, but Fighter in particular is especially bad at it since you're eating an extra -2 to hit for using an off-type weapon too.
So you're spending a ton of extra money and feats all to maybe do a little bit more damage sometimes, except not really because you're tanking your accuracy and spending actions juggling weapons.
You can probably make it work if you really want to, but to call it something every single ranged character should do is a massive stretch.
That is odd given how PF1 worked with feats.
I'd love to see the math behind it. Given a PF1 archer would buy Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, Multishot, Weapon Specialization Bow, Greater Weapon Specialization Bow, Weapon Focus Bow, Greater Weapon Focus Bow, and likely take the archer path for a fighter.
Whereas a PF2 archer could take double shot. Easily transfer runes since +1 striking melee weapons are extremely common while keeping your bow up with cash.
Seems like a strange assertion that you haven't been able to keep up with switch hitting as a fighter given the fighter doesn't have near as many archery focused feats to keep up as he did in PF1.
It's pretty far from a massive stretch given the low feat investment and ease of obtaining a good melee striking weapon. You have to be not even trying to not be able to switchhit effectively. You literally have to be ignoring the treasure you're picking up, not even bothering to read the transfer rune rules, not even doing the math on the difference between using a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, and not even looking at feats to allow switch hitting.
A fighter can hit with a non-focused weapon as easily as every other martial class in the game. They do fine.
You can switch hit so easily in PF2, it should be the default way of building for nearly every class including casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2? Having fully upgraded weapons are much more important, so you need to invest a lot more. Having fully upgraded stats is much more important for hitting too (so you're getting less out of the biggest melee weapons). The incentive for needing to switch is down too because AoOs are less common and the action economy of switching weapons is so much worse.
It's easier to manage switch hitting with melee and thrown as you can use a single weapon with Returning. Add in far shot to pad out your ranges and you're doing ok.
Using Citricking's tool, you see that switching to a Greatsword don't improve your damage much. Starting at level 8, you do more damage with a Longbow and at level 10 with a Shortbow, and that's without taking into account the fact that your Greatsword will be less runed than your bows and that you'll have more feats with the bows.
Switch hitting from Bow to melee is useless for a Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using Citricking's tool, you see that switching to a Greatsword don't improve your damage much. Starting at level 8, you do more damage with a Longbow and at level 10 with a Shortbow, and that's without taking into account the fact that your Greatsword will be less runed than your bows and that you'll have more feats with the bows.
Switch hitting from Bow to melee is useless for a Fighter.
Why would your greatsword be less runed than your bow?
It's like we're all playing a different game. It takes 10% of the cost to transfer a rune from one weapon to another. You get tons of runed weapons and armor during adventures. It's smarter to transfer them over to keep up more weapons than get rid of them. I even recommend keeping a runed agile weapon like a dagger in case you get swallowed by something harsh. Even with maxed out Athletics and strength, it's hard to break out of sometimes.
My players practice this PF1 mentality to their detriment. It has little to do with effectiveness than being caught up in PF1 mentality. Then they complain and whine when they run into a situation when they can't use their primary means of attack. Sometimes even threaten to quick because the game became difficult and they weren't prepared. I tell them, "Go ahead and quit. I don't run easy games. If you don't want to play, I'll find players who like a challenge."
A DM can use tactics on a party that disrupts their standard forms of attack and they refuse to alter their fighting style to be more effective in an unforeseen circumstance. Why would people do that when PF2 has made adjusting so much easier than it's ever been.
On my ranger, I keep a bow and a sword up with doubling rings since he is a primary dual wielder easily. Why can't others easily do it? I switch hit between bow and dual wield swords. I am more effective with dual wield swords, but sometimes that combat style doesn't work. I switch to bow and am not far off the swords in damage.
Why am I able to easily manage this, but others make it seem like this isn't a useful ability? Doesn't make much sense.
What do you do when the flying dragon is ripping your group up and you only have the magic for a fly spell on one martial? Stand there doing nothing because you didn't bother to rune up a good bow even though you have a great dex and could have easily make an effective archer?
So your assertion that it is useless to use a melee weapon is patently false. There are reasons you would rune up a melee weapon and go melee. Your bow could be rendered ineffective by magic. Your bow could get disarmed. You could be fighting in an environment where you have to be up close and personal. You could get swallowed where you can't use a bow. It's better to be prepared for a variety of circumstances given how easy it is to do.
If you want to be a prepared player, build to do a few things. It's not that hard. It's not difficult to keep up two weapons: a ranged and melee weapon. I do this on multiple characters.
I have a barbarian who keeps up a greatpick and a javelin with a returning rune.
I have a flurry ranger who keeps up dual goblin slicers and a bow.
I'v found switch hitting extremely useful in certain situations that would turn dire if you could not switch hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would your greatsword be less runed than your bow?
Because it's a secondary weapon so your first Flaming Rune will go to the bow.
I have a barbarian who keeps up a greatpick and a javelin with a returning rune.
I have a flurry ranger who keeps up dual goblin slicers and a bow.
Totally different question. Being able to switch hit from melee to ranged is a necessity. But we were speaking of switch hit from a ranged Fighter to a melee Fighter. The only case I see where this would be useful is if you face AoO enemies in a situation where you can't Step out of their reach. So, it's a once in a campaign case. But maybe you can find other situations where there would be a point to switch to a melee weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly agree with Deviren. Keeping a secondary weapons up to snuff isn't very hard when you factor in how often striking runes get dropped and how item pricing makes buying a bunch of lower level items really affordable. That means even property runes become pretty cheap, at least if you go for lesser elemental runes over the marginal gains of greater elemental runes. Switch hitting works really really well on a ranger.
But I also think Fighters have a tougher time with it, so it wouldn't necessarily be my suggestion for one.
That's not really a good idea for a Fighter unless you pick up a dedication that boosts your proficiency with other weapons, due to how their own weapon proficiency scaling works. Not to mention that you want to find some way to get Quick Draw, since you'll end up using a few actions stowing and drawing your various weapons.
There's always gauntlets or unarmed attacks to avoid the action economy issue.
I think the rogue is the best switch hitter in PF2. They can really benefit from having a good ranged weapon, especially if they pick up a D8, or D10 and focus on it for their striking runes, but having a good agile, finesse, melee weapon, especially one that is deadly for when the enemy makes it too easy to get flanking without having to waste many actions to exploit it. With the lower damage die of those kind of weapons, it is mostly about crit fishing and piling up sneak damage anyway, so being a couple levels behind on runes is not a big deal trade off for getting to make multiple attacks with an agile weapon.
Precision rangers that don't drop too many feats into a specific combat style can be good switch hitters in PF2, but Ranger feats really do tend more towards specialization, especially the ones that build off of the Flurry edge.
Fighters can be ok at switch hitting, but really need to invest in an archetype to make it worth while, as they are likely to have enough combat feats centered around their preferred fighting style, on top of their weapon group proficiency bonus, that they can often be quite a bit behind if they switch up their style.
Which is why PBS is a very good feat for fighters that want to really specialize on a specific combat style, and Ranged combat is a good style to focus on in PF2 because it is very rarely not going to be effective, especially in comparison to some of the more brutish melee combat styles that can do more damage, but often require 2 actions dedicated to a single attack. The fighter as a crit fisher with a long bow is a strong build that can make a lot of powerful attacks.
I get how PBS can feel like a waste if your plan is to stay out of that range, but it is a pretty strong fall back plan for a human that gets 2 1st level class feats, or if you find out that your campaign is going to spend a lot of time in dungeons. Using PBS and Exacting strike is pretty great in rounds 2 or later, rather than having to spend an action moving away.
The argument that you should just focus on Melee in any campaign that is going to be more of a dungeon crawl falls a little flat to me, because ranged combat is still usually good in situations where melee combat might be a little more optimal damage-wise, but melee combat is often not possible where ranged combat is needed. If your plan is to be a fighter that goes all in on specializing in one weapon and picking feats that make that weapon the best it can be, you are often better off with a ranged weapon than a melee one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would your greatsword be less runed than your bow?Because it's a secondary weapon so your first Flaming Rune will go to the bow.
Totally different question. Being able to switch hit from melee to ranged is a necessity. But we were speaking of switch hit from a ranged Fighter to a melee Fighter. The only case I see where this would be useful is if you face AoO enemies in a situation where you can't Step out of their reach. So, it's a once in a campaign case. But maybe you can find other situations where there would be a point to switch to a melee weapon.I have a barbarian who keeps up a greatpick and a javelin with a returning rune.
I have a flurry ranger who keeps up dual goblin slicers and a bow.
Exactly. Or getting swallowed by some harsh burrowing creature. Or if enemy casters set up a wind wall in front of giants. Or are firing from behind really good cover like an arrow slit.
I'm not expecting someone to switch hit all the time, but you shouldn't walk around not caring about having a backup melee weapon that might be useful for a few unique situations. That is far better than being useless if those rare times should come up and start complaining.
Switchhitting is very easy PF2. The feat investment for a particular fighting style is not as heavy as PF1. It shouldn't be looked at as something useless or not possible. It should be seen as an easy way to make your character more useful in more situations.
Exactly. Or getting swallowed by some harsh burrowing creature. Or if enemy casters set up a wind wall in front of giants. Or are firing from behind really good cover like an arrow slit.
I'm not expecting someone to switch hit all the time, but you shouldn't walk around not caring about having a backup melee weapon that might be useful for a few unique situations. That is far better than being useless if those rare times should come up and start complaining.
Switchhitting is very easy PF2. The feat investment for a particular fighting style is not as heavy as PF1. It shouldn't be looked at as something useless or not possible. It should be seen as an easy way to make your character more useful in more situations.
I think our disagreement is a semantic one. For me, switch hitting is using a ranged and a melee weapon quite regularly. Switching weapon for when you are swallowed or if the enemy casts Wind Wall is not switch hitting, it's just having a backup weapon (and in general, I will hardly care of runing this weapon, a Potency Crystal is enough until late levels).
That's why I say that switch hitting is useless for a ranged Fighter. You'll use a melee weapon once in a blue moon, so you don't have to care much about it.