Ranger using a bow- Better damage with flurry or precision?

[TwilightKnight]

I'm not here to educate you. I am merely saying that my research has informed my decision and it is what it is as a result. I'm sure your research in whatever form that takes has functioned similarly. Clearly we have different interpretations on this subject as a result. You have decided those are the things that define a ranger for you. That doesn't mean its how a ranger is defined for everyone else. Or to what degree those things need to be present to qualify as validation.

If you wanted to propose that native Americans were a precursor to Robin Hood, display many of the traditional aspects of the fantasy ranger, and should therefore be considered the inspirational source for the class in fantasy literature, I would not tell you, you were wrong, even if I disagreed with it. Its plausible enough, especially given your list of qualifiers. They are known to speak with animals to the extent that you believe it is possible. They certainly used healing traditions that some would say have a magical presentation. They certainly had more respect for the natural world than the average European. Generally they displayed more martial prowess than would be associated with a druid and did not generally wear heavy armor or use shields. Etc.

Though to be honest, if we go that route, probably want to start looking at similar cultures that predate the native American, or at least are believed to, on the African continent. But, since I'm not suggesting these are the inspiration for our modern view of the fantasy ranger, I'll leave that argument to someone else.

Personally, I think the oldest historical evidence that exists in any quantity indicates that Robin Hood is the inspiration for the modern fantasy ranger. Certainly he does not check every box now associated with them, but enough to satisfy me and at the end of the day, the only opinion that truly matters to me, is mine. Arrogant as that sounds, it is true of everyone. I can disagree with your conclusions but that holds no sway over your opinion. What we cannot really differ on is what makes a ranger in Pathfinder 2E since those rules are clearly spelled out in the CRB.

[graystone]

TwilightKnight wrote:

No, the TWF thing long precedes Drizzt. It was a primary feature as early as 1E AD&D back in the late '70s.

I've got that book! Unearthed Arcana pg#10 gave drow the ability to use 2 weapons without penalty. ;)

Other than that it was -2/-4 adjusted by dex [but not positive] DM guide. And I think there was a dragon article that expanded on it, 64 or 68 I think.

[N N 959]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Personally, I think the oldest historical evidence that exists in any quantity indicates that Robin Hood is the inspiration for the modern fantasy ranger.

There may be innumerable things that "inspired "Tolkein to create the Ranger. That doesn't make them Rangers. The propeller airplane inspired the jet and the helicopter. That doesn't make it ether one of those.

A think a lot of the disconnect in these discussions is that people want to equate the concept of the Ranger as being no different than the bard, the fighter, or the rogue. There seems to be this idea that the "Ranger" was always out there and Tolkein and AD&D were just one of many to use the concept. Except the other classes already existed in fantasy before LOTR. The Ranger did not.

There are many variations of bards in history, and they were called bards. The same can be said for fighters or rogues or barbarians, monks,, etc. Even Magic-Users (wizards/sorcers) were well established in literature before LOTR. The Ranger was not. There are no English folklore tales that talk about heroic "Rangers." Sure, the things that may have inspired Tolkein were there, but those things were not Rangers. Yes, Robin Hood inspired the AD&D Ranger. That doesn't make him a Ranger.

Quote:

What we cannot really differ on is what makes a ranger in Pathfinder 2E since those rules are clearly spelled out in the CRB.

There is no law against Paizo redefining the concept as they see fit. Paizo can roll out a pirate and call it a Ranger.

[Francis the Badger Minion]

One thing I notice with some regularity in the message boards, users who insist that even when discussing a topic as varied as this one, only their opinion is right and others are wrong. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of what an opinion really is and that while we can disagree with someone's conclusions, it doesn't make their opinion more "right" and yours more "wrong." Don't invest too much time on those folks. Its not worth it and you'll just end up frustrated. Unfortunately, they exist in large enough numbers that it can be a challenge to avoid them entirely and they are generally good at sucking you into their arguments. Good luck!

[Gortle]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

This is another one of those threads that makes me question if I'm on the Pathfinder 2e forums, rangers seem perfectly effective and thematically coherent as being focused on hunting tropes, with a few DNDisms.

Yeah but we are allowed to be fussy and want different things.

Rangers are mostly mechanically reasonable and functional in PF2. We are discussing flavour.

[Lucerious]

I always just figured the ranger inspired by the typical “huntsman” or “woodsman”. That some earlier editions of the ranger had a mystical element to it is just added story fluff to fit into a world of dragons and magic.

[N N 959]

Lucerious wrote:

I always just figured the ranger inspired by the typical “huntsman” or “woodsman”.

"Inspired by?" Absolutely. Roller skates inspired the skateboard. But the two are not the same and don't serve the same purpose. Yes, people can use them for overlapping purposes, but one is not interchangeable with the other.

Quote:

That some earlier editions of the ranger had a mystical element to it is just added story fluff to fit into a world of dragons and magic.

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger."

Tolkien's Ranger wasn't just Tolkien's version of the hunter, and that's something a lot of people don't seem to understand. Think of it as the difference between the Paladin and the Cavalier (Champion in 2e). While they may share common concepts, they represent very different things in fantasy. Only Tolkien's Ranger was something he, alone, came up with, undoubtedly inspired by many sources.

Obviously any author or game designer can take the concept and modify it for their own purposes. But at some point, you've twisted/bent/modified a longsword to such a degree, it's inaccurate to call it a longsword. And people who want to use a longsword are gong to feel dissatisfied. Look at the Paladin. Paizo recognized that they couldn't just make Champion and Paladin the same thing. They had to separate the two. I wish they had done that for the Ranger and the hunter trope. But obviously if you have no concept of the Paladin as anything more than a Champion, you would not have been bothered by a decision to combine.

Paizo made a deliberate decision to make a class that they could call a Ranger, but watered down so that it could service many of the concepts that may have inspired the Ranger or have spun off from it, but were not actually Rangers. Again, that's their perrogative. But it is a zero some game in a world of tight math and "balance," you're sacrificing something.

However, since I suspect that a large number of Paizo's players haven't actually read LOTR or played AD&D, and if both of those don't care about Rangers, it's not surprising to see the forums largely devoid of people who care about the outcome. Kind of like when historical buildings are demolished. Some people may understand and appreciate the craft that went into it. But most of us are oblivious or are convinced it's not worth saving in favor of something new and shiny.

And it didn't help that the PF1 Ranger wasn't exactly perfect either. I can certainly see why Paizo wanted to change things.

Gortle wrote:

Yeah but we are allowed to be fussy and want different things.

Or simply an opportunity to talk about a facet of the game that is at the heart of why we play it.

[WWHsmackdown]

N N 959 wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

My prior historical research and subsequent paper on the subject of Robin Hood would seem to be at odds with your interpretation in many ways. but, the beauty is that this is all just opinion and yours and mine and everyone else's don't need to agree, nor should they.

I seem to recall a meme mentioning something about opinions being akin to something or other, hmmmm...

:-D

I would be happy to see any literary references that talk about Robin Hood as a Ranger. Or him befriending animals, or traveling with animals, or using healing magic, or being able heal others through divine magic. Or maybe he could speak with animals? Or is linked with elves? If you've done the research, I'm eager to see the references.

I mean lots of people use bows and live out in the woods. North America was filled with those types of people before Europeans arrived. So really the Native American should be the father of the Ranger....right? I'm sure they did more tracking and new more about nature than Robin Hood.

I'm very happy with the p2e ranger and don't at all believe its choice of name is worthy of this much agitation

[Lucerious]

N N 959 wrote:

Lucerious wrote:

Quote:

That some earlier editions of the ranger had a mystical element to it is just added story fluff to fit into a world of dragons and magic.

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger."

Tolkien's Ranger wasn't just Tolkien's version of the hunter, and that's something a lot of people don't seem to understand. Think of it as the difference between the Paladin and the Cavalier (Champion in 2e). While they may share common concepts, they represent very different things in fantasy. Only Tolkien's Ranger was something he, alone, came up with, undoubtedly inspired by many sources.

Obviously any author or game designer can take the concept and modify it for their own purposes. But at some point, you've twisted/bent/modified a longsword to such a degree, it's inaccurate to call it a longsword. And people who want to use a longsword are gong to feel dissatisfied. Look at the Paladin. Paizo recognized that they couldn't just make Champion and Paladin the same thing. They had to separate the two. I wish they had done that for the Ranger and the hunter trope. But obviously if you have no concept of the Paladin as anything more than a Champion, you would not have been bothered by a decision to combine.

Paizo made a deliberate decision to make a class that they could call a Ranger, but watered down so that it could service many of the concepts that may have inspired the Ranger or have spun off from it, but were not actually Rangers. Again, that's their perrogative. But it is a zero some game in a world of tight math and "balance," you're sacrificing something.

However, since I suspect that a large number of Paizo's players haven't...

I was referring to TTRPGs and the like not general media.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

...but one is not interchangeable with the other.

In your opinion

N N 959 wrote:

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger"

In your opinion

There is a theme developing...

[N N 959]

TwilightKnight wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger"

In your opinion

There is a theme developing...

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively. Whether Tolkein created the Ranger or got it from someone else isn't a matter of opinion. Either you have proof of someone using his Ranger before him or you don't.

[Lucerious]

N N 959 wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger"

In your opinion

There is a theme developing...

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively. Whether Tolkein created the Ranger or got it from someone else isn't a matter of opinion. Either you have proof of someone using his Ranger before him or you don't.

I think that the point is not everyone sees the Tolkien ranger as the definitive ranger.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Lucerious wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger"

In your opinion

There is a theme developing...

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively. Whether Tolkein created the Ranger or got it from someone else isn't a matter of opinion. Either you have proof of someone using his Ranger before him or you don't.

I think that the point is not everyone sees the Tolkien ranger as the definitive ranger.

I wouldn't want to play Tolkien's Ranger anyway. It's all the same: a Dark Elf with a certain copyrighted name, with Scimitars, a Bow, an Animal Companion, and minimal spellcasting. Yawn, boring, been there, did that, and everyone and their grandma did it too.

Jokes aside, Paizo didn't want to make Tolkien's Ranger either, so I don't see the point of arguing about what makes Tolkien's Ranger.

[Ed Reppert]

In Golarion we don't have Tolkien's elves, or Tolkien's dwarves, or Tolkien's orcs, or Tolkien's Maiar, or Tolkien's Valar, or Tolkien's Eru, or Tolkien's Palantiri, or Tolkien's pretty much anything. So I don't see why anyone should be fixated on Tolkien's Rangers in the context of Golarion. And yes, I'm aware there's a difference between the setting (Golarion) and the rule set (Pathfinder Second Edition). That's not the point.

[graystone]

N N 959 wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

There are no earlier versions of the "Ranger"

In your opinion

There is a theme developing...

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively. Whether Tolkein created the Ranger or got it from someone else isn't a matter of opinion. Either you have proof of someone using his Ranger before him or you don't.

Well someone could say right back at you 'Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively' when you say "Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively." You just get a Mobius strip of conflicting opinions since we can't really ask Tolkien what his inspirations for the ranger where so both sides are just using conjecture.

Personally, I think it's a losing proposition to try to link Ranger back to a single source. Who knows what was thought of when the Ranger first showed up in Original Dungeons & Dragons' The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2. We DO know what the AD&D second edition handbook mentions as inspirations from myth and legend, and it wasn't Tolkien.

OD&D players guide 2nd edition wrote:

The ranger is a hunter and woodsman who lives by not only his sword, but also his wits. Robin Hood, Orion, Jack the giant killer, and the huntresses of Diana are examples of rangers from history and legend.

[N N 959]

Lucerious wrote:

I think that the point is not everyone sees the Tolkien ranger as the definitive ranger.

I'm not sure what you mean by "definitive" in this context, but Tolkien was the first person to create the Ranger in fantasy and call it that, that I am aware of.

Whether you want/choose that to be your model for the Ranger or not is entirely up to you and not at all the point of my discussion. If you think the Swashbuckler feats are those of true Rangers, that's your choice. But your choice of what you call a Ranger changes nothing about where the class originated.

[Squiggit]

FWIW, the PF2e ranger reminds me a lot of the D&D4e ranger in terms of its overall design: An emphasis specifically on TWF or archery, magical and animal companions pushed to the periphery, focused on damage dealing with some limited survival-flavored utility rather than combat support or primarily emphasizing the survivalism.

The PF2 ranger in a lot of respects also reminds me more of the PF1 slayer than the PF1 ranger (which makes sense, since the PF1 slayer is in many respects a magicless, slightly less nature-focused ranger to begin with).

Though what specifically informed both of those similar shifts in design philosophy from the 3.5/PF1 ranger to this iteration I can't quite say.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

FWIW, the PF2e ranger reminds me a lot of the D&D4e ranger in terms of its overall design: An emphasis specifically on TWF or archery, magical and animal companions pushed to the periphery, focused on damage dealing with some limited survival-flavored utility rather than combat support or primarily emphasizing the survivalism.

I never played 4e, but it sounds like I didn't miss much. I think you and I have very similar, if not exactly the same impression of PF2 Ranger.

I will add that I understand Paizo had to build the Ranger in a pre-defined box. And I get the sense that in both 4e and PF2, that box does not lend itself to recapturing the Tolkein/AD&D Ranger, despite Paizo still clinging/tryng to recapture facets of it.

Quote:

The PF2 ranger in a lot of respects also reminds me more of the PF1 slayer than the PF1 ranger (which makes sense, since the PF1 slayer is in many respects a magicless, slightly less nature-focused ranger to begin with).

That's exactly what I said in the Playtest (though I may have erroneously used the term Hunter when I meant Slayer). As I mentioned in a previous thread. I really wish Paizo had called this the Hunter and made the Ranger a separate thing, like they did with the Champion/Paladin.

Quote:

Though what specifically informed both of those similar shifts in design philosophy from the 3.5/PF1 ranger to this iteration I can't quite say.

I don't know, but I can guess: Money.

I think Paizo made a judgment call. I think they decided that a toolbox was going to be a bigger sell than a defined experience. And to be frank, D&D did the same thing under TSR and WotC. Classes went from a one-size-fits all to increasing levels of customization. So rather than say, "Hey, this class does X and only X, and we're going to make sure it's fun," Paizo and others have said we don't know what is gong to be fun, so we'll create a whole bunch of mechanics, link them to concepts, and we'll let the player figure it out.

And within that design cycle, WotC and Paizo found out that rampant customization had some real drawbacks, so they've tried to fix those with tight math. In theory, it should work. But WotC got there first with 4e and quickly moved on. For some, the approach worked, there are still people who like and play 4e and these forums are filled with PF2 survivors.

For me, the 2e experience is lacking. There's something about the character build process that feels like I'm wearing some really tight underwear. Now when I"m playing 5e, it doesn't feel that way. There's something stifling about PF2 as compared with PF1. Like someone has my arms pinned to my sides.

But I'm not GMing 5e or PF2, or PF1 (anymore), so I'm not seeing a lot of the supposed payoff of GMing PF2

[TwilightKnight]

graystone wrote:

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively

Good luck but you cannot have a productive discussion with someone who's fundamental basis is "my opinion is the only one that is correct so I dismiss your opinion because it is wrong."

[graystone]

TwilightKnight wrote:

graystone wrote:

Just because it's your opinion that something isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true, objectively

Good luck but you cannot have a productive discussion with someone who's fundamental basis is "my opinion is the only one that is correct so I dismiss your opinion because it is wrong."

Oh I understand that: it's just funny when you see someone stating something is an objective truth then complaining someone else is doing it while not seeing the inherent contradiction in doing so. ;)

[WWHsmackdown]

N N 959 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

FWIW, the PF2e ranger reminds me a lot of the D&D4e ranger in terms of its overall design: An emphasis specifically on TWF or archery, magical and animal companions pushed to the periphery, focused on damage dealing with some limited survival-flavored utility rather than combat support or primarily emphasizing the survivalism.

I never played 4e, but it sounds like I didn't miss much. I think you and I have very similar, if not exactly the same impression of PF2 Ranger.

I will add that I understand Paizo had to build the Ranger in a pre-defined box. And I get the sense that in both 4e and PF2, that box does not lend itself to recapturing the Tolkein/AD&D Ranger, despite Paizo still clinging/tryng to recapture facets of it.

Quote:

The PF2 ranger in a lot of respects also reminds me more of the PF1 slayer than the PF1 ranger (which makes sense, since the PF1 slayer is in many respects a magicless, slightly less nature-focused ranger to begin with).

That's exactly what I said in the Playtest (though I may have erroneously used the term Hunter when I meant Slayer). As I mentioned in a previous thread. I really wish Paizo had called this the Hunter and made the Ranger a separate thing, like they did with the Champion/Paladin.

Quote:

Though what specifically informed both of those similar shifts in design philosophy from the 3.5/PF1 ranger to this iteration I can't quite say.

I don't know, but I can guess: Money.

I think Paizo made a judgment call. I think they decided that a toolbox was going to be a bigger sell than a defined experience. And to be frank, D&D did the same thing under TSR and WotC. Classes went from a one-size-fits all to increasing levels of customization. So rather than say, "Hey, this class does X and only X, and we're going to make sure it's fun," Paizo and others have said we don't know what is gong to be fun, so we'll create a whole bunch of mechanics, link them to concepts, and we'll let the player figure it out.

And...

....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

[N N 959]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Good luck but you cannot have a productive discussion with someone who's fundamental basis is "my opinion is the only one that is correct so I dismiss your opinion because it is wrong."

Conversely, conversation stalls when someone insist on claiming everything that disagrees with their narrative is a matter of opinion.

[N N 959]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

Oh, I haven't made any claims about the size of the player base, it's interesting that you are trying to ascribe such a claim.

If you have verifiable numbers of the number of PF1 vs PF2 players, please share.

[The-Magic-Sword]

N N 959 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

Oh, I haven't made any claims about the size of the player base, it's interesting that you are trying to ascribe such a claim.

If you have verifiable numbers of the number of PF1 vs PF2 players, please share.

Its not that interesting, your post implies you think most of the player base died as a result of 2e. If that isn't what you meant, you sure picked some odd words to use.

[N N 959]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

Oh, I haven't made any claims about the size of the player base, it's interesting that you are trying to ascribe such a claim.

If you have verifiable numbers of the number of PF1 vs PF2 players, please share.

Its not that interesting, your post implies you think most of the player base died as a result of 2e. If that isn't what you meant, you sure picked some odd words to use.

No, I didn't. You inferred something that wasn't said, or implied. The word "survivor" doesn't convey any information about whether the group of victims is greater or lesser in number. Everyone on the planet is a C-19 survivor. If you want to infer that's 20 people, that's on you.

[MEATSHED]

N N 959 wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

Oh, I haven't made any claims about the size of the player base, it's interesting that you are trying to ascribe such a claim.

If you have verifiable numbers of the number of PF1 vs PF2 players, please share.

Its not that interesting, your post implies you think most of the player base died as a result of 2e. If that isn't what you meant, you sure picked some odd words to use.

No, I didn't. You inferred something that wasn't said, or implied. The word "survivor" doesn't convey any information about whether the group of victims is greater or lesser in number. Everyone on the planet is a C-19 survivor. If you want to infer that's 20 people, that's on you.

There is a pretty major difference between the use of the word survivor when in reference to a possibly fatal disease and the use of it in reference to a RPG.

[N N 959]

MEATSHED wrote:

There is a pretty major difference between the use of the word survivor when in reference to a possibly fatal disease and the use of it in reference to a RPG..

No, there isn't. The word means the same thing in both contexts. Whether you're talking about game show contestants or pandemics, the word means the same thing. You're conflating what it means to survive something with simply being a survivor. Regardless, neither context implies one group is larger than the other, which is what someone tried to accuse me of.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Sure, whatever you say.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

No, there isn't

For those keeping score at home, just another example of "I'm right, you're wrong." If it continues, at some point we'll start hearing "nan'er nan'er."