| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi folks,
OP here. I found most of this discussion really useful. Some questions:
* I've seen recommendations about taking the archer dedication. I'm not sure why. The dedication itself seems pretty worthless for a fighter or ranger (for a ranger you get critical specialization against non-hunted targets, but that seems like a minor corner case?). Only point blank shot (huge, but needs an action to set up) and archer's aim seem hugely useful, and hunter's aim is almost as good as archer's aim. I guess taking 2 feats for point-blank shot is probably worth it?
*You all keep indicating deadly give an extra 2d10 damage. Can I assume you mean it does so once you get a greater striking weapon (so around level 11 I'd guess?)Thanks folks!
If you want to be the most effective archer without any other concern, getting point blank shot to counter the volley penalty on the composite longbow is the very best you can do, and it's worth the 2 feats. 18 strength is also something you should aim for at some point.
They are referring to 2d10 with the second tier striking rune. The 3rd tier gets deadly all the way up to 3d10.
If you want to go less all in and take a different archetype, getting 18 strength and a composite shortbow or unconventional weaponry and a daikyu are also good options.
As far as the archer dedication on a Ranger (I am not super sold on it for a fighter), getting crit specialization at level 2 instead of level 5, and on all your attacks with a bow, not just against hunted targets is better than hunter's aim, unless you are going precision ranger.
This allows you to get PBS at level 4, which is better than your other 4th level options and it will often be worth using an action to go into PBS stance over hunting a lower level target that is unlikely to live past the end of the round anyway. Then you can either pick up the Daikyu if you are tanking STR at level 6 or go back and pick up hunter's aim, or boost your animal companion if you picked one up at level 1, and then take the vastly superior archer's aim at 8th level and you are a very competent archer. You have also completed your Archer archetype at this point so you are free to branch out at 10 if you want to pick up eldritch archer (which you could do at level 8 if you take advanced weapons at 6). Deadly Aim is situationally ok, but often a trap, as 4 damage isn't really worth a -2 to attack.
This isn't to say that a traditional ranger with a composite long bow, sticking to ranger feats is always going to be terrible, but it can be very action intensive and result in a lot less legolas "shoot everything that moves" than a lot of players realize, because of how single target focused you are forced into being when all your feats require you to hunt your target first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That recommendation of the daikyu for a low strength ranger is kind of dodgy. Even if you houserule away the reload stat on it (which is reasonable, as it's likely a misprint), its still an Advanced Weapon and if you don't have some way to get up to your full proficiency with it, the accuracy penalty is not worth it.
That recommendation of the daikyu for a low strength ranger is kind of dodgy. Even if you houserule away the reload stat on it (which is reasonable, as it's likely a misprint), its still an Advanced Weapon and if you don't have some way to get up to your full proficiency with it, the accuracy penalty is not worth it.
I wasn't clear: Pick up the level 6 advanced bow training to get the daikyu is one decent option for a ranger with no interest in boosting STR, if you have already gone with the archer dedication anyway.
That makes more sense than what I was thinking. Still not personally sold on the daikyu being worth the investment (and there are the minor details of the reload error and possibly of being hard to get your hands on one due to rarity), but it isn't totally untenable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even then we're talking about a really tiny damage increase on average.
I'd say less a "good" option and more better than nothing in the most literal definition of that phrase provided you meet all the very specific criteria for it to be a relevant option.
To be frank I'd only take the Archer dedication on characters for whom the martial bow proficiency matters, so mostly casters though switch-hitting fighters can make use of it too. Spending a class feat on basically nothing is reaaaaally bad, and Ranger has too many good feats to be willing to spend two feats just on point blank shot.
If you're playing in a campaign where you expect to have long sight lines frequently then you can use the longbow as a Ranger just fine. It's not like you need PBS to do archery at all, the shortbow works quite well if volley is too much of a risk.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a rebuttal and you know it.
Spending a class feat on basically nothing is reaaaaally bad, and Ranger has too many good feats to be willing to spend two feats just on point blank shot.I see, so there's a "feat tax" to get PBS/use a longbow without penalty if you're not a Fighter?
I think there is a difference between "able to use a long bow" and "Able to always use a longbow effectively." A lot of characters can use long bows effectively in PF2...but not necessarily in every encounter, especially when headed into the common situation of a cramped dungeon. For a character like a Ranger, there really is no reason at low levels not to carry back up weapons. Melee characters often carry more than one weapon to cover weaknesses and resistances. Close quarters is a severe weakness of the Longbow in PF2.
Does that make PBS a feat tax? Only if you want to use a long bow exclusively. And even with point blank shot, the long bow only becomes better than a shortbow with a greater striking rune. I think the trap in archery is getting caught up in a build that is not working for your campaign. An oft overlooked advantage of having class abilities be feat based is that you can retrain the ones that are not working the way you thought they would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol
I see. So everyone who wants to use a longsword is just fine using a shortsword.
On a second and third attack, the short sword is the better weapon than the long sword, especially at lower levels.
ACs are quite high for boss monsters in PF2. Hitting with that first shot is vital to hit with the precision damage and gravity weapon. The precision archer is built around hitting that one big shot.
Multiple attacks often miss against high AC targets. The value of many attacks against a high AC target is marginal.
Gavity Weapon is the thing which wants you to have one big attack. Precision doesn't favour it at all.
But if you like Gravity Weapon then sure it makes some sense.
Hi folks,
OP here. I found most of this discussion really useful. Some questions:
* I've seen recommendations about taking the archer dedication. I'm not sure why. The dedication itself seems pretty worthless for a fighter or ranger (for a ranger you get critical specialization against non-hunted targets, but that seems like a minor corner case?). Only point blank shot (huge, but needs an action to set up) and archer's aim seem hugely useful, and hunter's aim is almost as good as archer's aim. I guess taking 2 feats for point-blank shot is probably worth it?
*You all keep indicating deadly give an extra 2d10 damage. Can I assume you mean it does so once you get a greater striking weapon (so around level 11 I'd guess?)Thanks folks!
You can Archer or Fighter archetype to get Point Blank Shot stance. It's all you need really to get rid of that pesky volley penalty.
Yes. Lvl 11 for the 2d10. 3d10 with Major Striking.
ACs are quite high for boss monsters in PF2. Hitting with that first shot is vital to hit with the precision damage and gravity weapon. The precision archer is built around hitting that one big shot.
Multiple attacks often miss against high AC targets. The value of many attacks against a high AC target is marginal.
Gavity Weapon is the thing which wants you to have one big attack. Precision doesn't favour it at all.
But if you like Gravity Weapon then sure it makes some sense.
What point are you trying to make? Nothing is some kind of absolute. But in general precision wants the first attack with everything going to be the biggest hit with the best chance to critical hit. Hunter's Aim helps set that up at times.
Then the ranger can still use Hunted Shot as his 3rd action, which allows him to use 3 shots in a single round to tag some additional damage.
What I'm getting at is those three feats I listed are archer tools in the toolbox. Ranger archer players figure out when best to use them. They are definitely good feats to have, very useful. I'm not sure what else you would take that would be more useful.
It's a very natural progression to pick those feats up and improved your animal companion at the same time.
I mean they will. The damage difference between the two is pretty minor, it is somewhere between 1-4 damage depending on level (it was rather minor in 1e too, just a bit more noticeable because of you much you attacked in 1e)."Hey people, just hand in your longbow and we'll give you this shortbow and you'll be just fine."
Personally, I'd just carry both plus a back up melee weapon. You may only be able to upgrade one right away, but it doesn't really become a problem until like level 9 or so when property runes come into play. And between then and getting your next striking weapon odds are you'll loot some more magic weapons off enemies.
What point are you trying to make? Nothing is some kind of absolute. But in general precision wants the first attack with everything going to be the biggest hit with the best chance to critical hit. Hunter's Aim helps set that up at times.
Then the ranger can still use Hunted Shot as his 3rd action, which allows him to use 3 shots in a single round to tag some additional damage.
What I'm getting at is those three feats I listed are archer tools in the toolbox. Ranger archer players figure out when best to use them. They are definitely good feats to have, very useful. I'm not sure what else you would take that would be more useful.
It's a very natural progression to pick those feats up and improved your animal companion at the same time.
Nothing in particular this is just a discussion.
Until you mentioned Gravity weapon though, I don't see that there was anything in Precision Ranger favouring the one big shot. Taking your chances with a second/third shot is equally valid.
I don't see the build as super strong though. Very much just a moderate base line for a martial striker.
What point are you trying to make? Nothing is some kind of absolute. But in general precision wants the first attack with everything going to be the biggest hit with the best chance to critical hit. Hunter's Aim helps set that up at times.
Then the ranger can still use Hunted Shot as his 3rd action, which allows him to use 3 shots in a single round to tag some additional damage.
What I'm getting at is those three feats I listed are archer tools in the toolbox. Ranger archer players figure out when best to use them. They are definitely good feats to have, very useful. I'm not sure what else you would take that would be more useful.
It's a very natural progression to pick those feats up and improved your animal companion at the same time.
Nothing in particular this is just a discussion.
Until you mentioned Gravity weapon though, I don't see that there was anything in Precision Ranger favouring the one big shot. Taking your chances with a second/third shot is equally valid.
I don't see the build as super strong though. Very much just a moderate base line for a martial striker.
More accurate to say that Precision Rangers have diminishing returns on hits after the first one; you only really need to hit once per round to do your good damage, but making a second strike at -5 is quite effective for when you missed the first one.
|
I played a Twin Takedown Ranger with a Shield and a good Intimidate, I've Demoralized only once in its (short) career and used Raise a Shield inconsistently. I mostly Hunt Prey, Stride, Twin Takedown every round.
You might consider taking the Dual-Weapon Warrior dedication and get the fighter's Double Slice. There is a martial-focused flurry ranger (Str18/Dex16) in one of my campaigns that often combines Twin-Takedown with Double Slice to gain extra attacks. Since he uses agile/finesse weapons that mitigate most of the pain of MAP, it is quite effective. In a party with a battle oracle, war priest, rogue, and bard, he is the primary DpR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What point are you trying to make? Nothing is some kind of absolute. But in general precision wants the first attack with everything going to be the biggest hit with the best chance to critical hit. Hunter's Aim helps set that up at times.
Then the ranger can still use Hunted Shot as his 3rd action, which allows him to use 3 shots in a single round to tag some additional damage.
What I'm getting at is those three feats I listed are archer tools in the toolbox. Ranger archer players figure out when best to use them. They are definitely good feats to have, very useful. I'm not sure what else you would take that would be more useful.
It's a very natural progression to pick those feats up and improved your animal companion at the same time.
Nothing in particular this is just a discussion.
Until you mentioned Gravity weapon though, I don't see that there was anything in Precision Ranger favouring the one big shot. Taking your chances with a second/third shot is equally valid.
I don't see the build as super strong though. Very much just a moderate base line for a martial striker.
It's not the strongest, but it has advantages. We thought it would be weak when he first made the class. But it didn't turn out to be weak for a variety of reasons that I see as the following:
1. Main stat damage becomes a much lower component of damage as you rise in level.
2. Being able to attack immediately at range means you generally get shots off before martials because you don't have to waste move actions to close the distance or move from target to target.
3. Flying and mobile creatures become more common at higher level. Much easier to attack with ranged weapon as it takes time to get melees flight.
4. Critical hits become more common at higher level due to buffs and debuffs and deadly d10 is good extra damage with criticals.
5. You don't suffer as much damage in battle due to range.
Overall, it's a nice package.
Damage is probably somewhere between a rogue and a one-handed fighter or monk level. Maybe similar to a swashbuckler. Not quite as high as a two-hander barbarian or fighter. None of them are as good as casters at higher level at wiping out battlefields of creatures.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gortle, the precision damage doubles on a crit and that chance goes away on a hit, that favors boosts to accuracy on a single attack.
|
|
As an aside, my org play precision ranger just sold off his c.longbow for a c.shortbow. It eliminates the issue of volley, is only about one point average less damage and with hunted prey, still has 120ft of unpenalized range, plenty for the vast majority of encounters. If the target is further away than that, it is usually because one of us is fleeing the other. This should reduce the frequency of having to move saving that action to command the AC, take an extra shot, or declare a hunted prey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a character like a Ranger, there really is no reason at low levels not to carry back up weapons.There is a reason. It's called action economy. Having to switch out weapons because one room is shorter than the other, or you've opened the door into a hallway costs actions. Especially when you're having to use Hunt Prey. What that impact or cost is, none of us can say. But I see lots of people like to hand wave the details.
Just to clarify, you make the choice at the start of the dungeon. Am I walking into a slanted or twisting dungeon that looks like it has 5ft hallways? Let's start off with the shortbow. (Which is the one I would want to default to in most prewritten dungeons) If the passages keep looking narrow, and I am a flurry ranger in a 5 person party with a fighter, a bard, a cleric and a wizard, with a decent amount of HP? I will stay up at the front, maybe even taking lead, or stand directly behind the fighter. Then I can hunt prey with my first action and just start firing if the targets appear weak and unlikely to survive a full round, or if it looks tougher, I can gravity bow and still get shots off in the first round. Getting "stuck" wielding the shortbow at the start of combat is never going waste more actions than starting with the longbow and then having to move to avoid taking the volley penalty, which is untyped, and likely to be stacked with a lesser or regular cover penalty.
I am confused why you would say that being an archer ranger has been frustrating for you, because you feel like you waste actions too frequently, but then reject the idea that getting those actions is worth a -1 penalty to damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
feat taxes are much alleviated by free archetype which I would encourage everyone to try out.
If you're concerned about power creep then just use the free dedication at lvl or of the player's choice if the archetype unlocks later
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday's game: My players opened a door and found a couple of monsters (Low encounter) in a room full of obvious terrain features (holes in the ground). The monsters started to attack at range. Melee martials charged in the middle. Monsters used terrain feature => 3h of fight to save the 3 martials. A fricking Low encounter that would have been dealt with in 2 rounds if the melee martials had left the ranged attackers handle it.
What makes archers so bad is not archery per se, it's melee martials who are unable to delay.
The more I play and the more I think the best parties are featuring nearly no melee martials. Just one real tank (Champion of Fighter) to prevent monsters to easily get to the backline, and that's it. Melee martials are dealing more damage but they take so much damage in return the tradeoff doesn't look interesting at all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday's game: My players opened a door and found a couple of monsters (Low encounter) in a room full of obvious terrain features (holes in the ground). The monsters started to attack at range. Melee martials charged in the middle. Monsters used terrain feature => 3h of fight to save the 3 martials. A fricking Low encounter that would have been dealt with in 2 rounds if the melee martials had left the ranged attackers handle it.
What makes archers so bad is not archery per se, it's melee martials who are unable to delay.
The more I play and the more I think the best parties are featuring nearly no melee martials. Just one real tank (Champion of Fighter) to prevent monsters to easily get to the backline, and that's it. Melee martials are dealing more damage but they take so much damage in return the tradeoff doesn't look interesting at all.
While I sympathize I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
The best parties use tactics appropriate to their abilities and to the situation AND have the ability to deal with a fairly wide range of situations. So, a party of mostly ranged characters should use quite different tactics (in general) than a party of mostly melee characters. And BOTH parties should be able to deal with situations requiring ranged characters AND situations requiring melee characters.
It IS a fairly serious character building error to not have SOME way of being reasonably effective at both range and at melee for almost all characters (the group is probably ok with one character who can't survive melee and one character who can't do anything at range but more than one becomes quite problematic).
That said, it is certainly the case that in a great many common situations (many, many dungeons with choke points) there rapidly becomes a point of diminishing returns for melee characters.
I am sort of irritated that the archer monk can't negate the volley penalty with a longbow (short of a level 20 feat which lets you have two stances at once) when the PF1 ZAM was literally the best at "standing adjacent to someone and shooting them with arrows."
In fairness, the default pick switched from longbows to shortbows between editions, and the penalty to shooting adjacent doesn't even exist anymore. The equivalent would be giving Monastic Archers a bonus for shooting adjacent...and it's not *quite* that, but they do get such a bonus for attacks within half of the first range increment (specifically, they get to apply effects like Stunning Fist :3 ). I can see the frustration given that they *can* use longbows but have to deal with a pretty specific sweetspot of 30-50 feet away, though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second, I've never seen or heard of an archer in real life or in fantasy tropes carrying multiple bows. Aragorn, no. Legolas, no. Robin Hood, no. William Tell, no. So the expectation of having both a short bow and a longbow is already a loss for Paizo. Technically you can do it, but you're forcing the player to adopt a character image that creates friction unless you're all about min/maxing and you're entirely divorced from any sense of realism or even convention.
I would claim that is because the Volley trait, while perhaps good for game balance, has absolutely no basis in either reality or fantasy tropes.
Blaming the character for being unrealistic is putting the blame in the wrong place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see characters switch weapons very often personally. Sometimes from ranged to melee or sometimes if they happen to find a special material weapon they'll keep it around. I can't imagine switching from a longbow to shortbow on the regular and trying to keep both upgraded.
I also don't really think it's necessary... just using a shortbow seems fine.
It IS a fairly serious character building error to not have SOME way of being reasonably effective at both range and at melee for almost all characters (the group is probably ok with one character who can't survive melee and one character who can't do anything at range but more than one becomes quite problematic).
In fairness, it can be kind of hard to find a decent one if you're a strength-based whatever. Especially for medium and heavy armor users who might be skimping on dex (kind of another understated advantage of the archer here).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see characters switch weapons very often personally. Sometimes from ranged to melee or sometimes if they happen to find a special material weapon they'll keep it around. I can't imagine switching from a longbow to shortbow on the regular and trying to keep both upgraded.
I also don't really think it's necessary... just using a shortbow seems fine.
Yeah pretty much the difference in damage is like 1 damage at the start to 4 at the high lvls, not really something that I would be switching around to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sort of irritated that the archer monk can't negate the volley penalty with a longbow (short of a level 20 feat which lets you have two stances at once) when the PF1 ZAM was literally the best at "standing adjacent to someone and shooting them with arrows."
same it bothers me to no end that the ancestral weaponry feat only applies to melee weapons and only to weapons with the actual ancestry trait. Instead of all the weapons that your ancestry makes you proficient with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It IS a fairly serious character building error to not have SOME way of being reasonably effective at both rangeIn fairness, it can be kind of hard to find a decent one if you're a strength-based whatever. Especially for medium and heavy armor users who might be skimping on dex (kind of another understated advantage of the archer here).
I've seen quite a few martial melee characters who have 1 of the following
1) A decent dex and a ranged weapon (very often a thrown weapon for the additional damage)2) A reasonable casting stat and an attack cantrip or two. Either Cha and a racial cantrip or a casting archetype.
3) Some ability to move FAST across the battlefield and force your way into melee. This can be as simple as increasing your base speed or not completely killing your base speed while having Sudden Charge.
In either case they're not going to be great but at least they'll have the option to be decent at it.
At the very least, once one gets to the appropriate level, a potion of fly, an elixir of jump, etc go some ways to addressing the issue.
Similarly, a ranged character can at least have a finesse weapon or burning hands or wild shape (depending on character) combined with an AC and hit points sufficient that they can go into the front lines briefly if required.
In PF2, playing a one trick pony is generally a worse strategy than it was in PF1. It is worth spending SOME resources in order to be at least somewhat flexible.
|
|
Blaming the character for being unrealistic is putting the blame in the wrong place.you've lost me here.
I read your previous post as saying the player of the archer character was doing something "wrong" by having two weapons. That the player was mini maxing at the cost of realism and/or image.
But I think it was Paizo that caused the disconnect between reality/image and gameplay.
My apologies if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
From what I read, balearic slingers did bring three different slings with them and used a different one depending on needed range.
Now, bows are quite a bit more bulky and they didn't have to apply runes...
Coming from a very inexperienced PF2e player (and unfortunately not enjoying it much so far...), I just wanted to drop a line to say this is a very informative and interesting thread. So thank you to all those more experienced in PF2e for sharing their thoughts here.
My uneducated opinion is that the more I read about PF2e in general, the more I feel convinced that it is a VERY different game from PF1e. Under that light (and regardless of PF1e), I think we can agree it is a game where archer performance as a 'damage dealer' will be inferior to melee and magical performance?
Some will have an easier time understanding/liking/accepting it, others will not (I am on this end of the spectrum). Much like some have a better or worse time understanding/liking/accepting the supremacy of magic in PF1e?