| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are interesting examples you picked out as I would say that the cross-over between cavalier and ranger is... quite small and Scout's Warning paired with what the Scout Dedication gives you is actually an interesting situation.
To start with, the cavalier's animal companion is limited to one with the mount special ability and all of the feats taken to improve it can only apply to the animal companion taken with the dedication. If you want a horse riding ranger, it's absolutely a lovely dedication to get, but if you want near anything else, you're probably better off with the ranger class feats.
The scout on the other hand, I'm going to switch the order of. Rather than reading, "You gain the Scout's Warning feat and grant a +2 circumstance bonus to initiative when using the Scout activity,: let's look at it as "You grant a +2 circumstance bonus to initiative when using the Scout activity, and gain the Scout's Warning feat (for when you're not scouting)." In essence, the dedication allows you to be "always Scouting" even when you're not. If you choose to instead focus on it, then you get that +2. As a reminder, the circumstance bonuses don't stack. The question becomes how much the ranger values the scout feats since it 100% will lock you out of other dedications for several levels. I feel like the trade off is fine, especially with so much of the scout's "kit" being so heavily focused on Stealth and less about taking advantage of that Stealth (as opposed to, say, a rogue who picked up Scout Dedication).
EDIT: Barring GM intervention, the list of common animal companions with mount are just the camel or the horse. Uncommon access allows you to include a monitor lizard or a riding drake.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Cavalier's mount increases in power two levels before the ranger, sure, but the Cavalier is restricted to animal companions that have the mount special ability or one provided via your pledge.
So a Ranger has slower progression but from the core book can choose a Badger, a Bear, a Bird, a Cat, a Raptor, a Horse, a Snake, or a Wolf.
A Cavalier has to work with their GM to make an animal fit into a pledge or can choose from the core book a Horse.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the motivation, but having a feat that anyone can take be better than a feat from a class makes it hard to justify taking the feat from the class. Archetype feats shouldn't be better than a class feat.
You're definitely underestimating how much of a power cost it is to be locked out of other archetypes to gain very niche benefits in a game that rewards a diversity of actions and builds.
The cavalier and scout archetype aren't built with the ranger in mind at all, though it can take the feats. Getting a highly specialized companion works for a highly specialized ranger build, but it isn't breaking the power curve. And getting a level 4 feat tacked on to a level 2 feat really only looks like a mistake when viewed from the ranger side for an archetype that benefits it less so than other classes. It's not bad, but I wouldn't trade away archetype access for more access to Stealth feats as a ranger, personally. Not to get Scout's Warning two levels earlier, either.
Still feels odd that a ranger who wants a horse is better off taking the archetype than the class feat. And feels odd that the fighter can have a better horse than the ranger.
I'm going to argue that if you're using the Cavalier Dedication Feat to get a horse that you are going to use and treat as a traditional animal companion - then you are in a sense using the dedication wrong.
The intent of that dedication is to use the mechanics defined for animal companions to justify the control of your mounted war horse. This is the other half of your "unparalleled team" with which you are a "powerful force on the battlefield."
The Ranger's Horse animal companion doesn't have to act as a mount, the Cavaliers does. The Ranger's Horse animal companion doesn't have to involve itself in combat, the Cavaliers does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Odd you picked Cavalier when Beastmaster is the one that's strictly better. Though it's also even better on a Ranger or Druid so there's that.
Hahah that was my thought exactly
There are a few archetypes that are just poorly balanced.
Staying with the beastmaster for instance. If you take the druid feat for animal companion you only upgrade your druid animal companion but if you take the beastmaster animal companion you upgrade all your animal companions from any source.
It's a minor balancing gripe though as strong archetypes are great for allowing more varied build paths.
And staying in your class can be worth it when you want a high level feat of another archetype but taking another archetype would lock you out.
I am also a big proponent of free archetype though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes can be generous at times, but that's partially because the "3 feats to leave" rule is more restrictive than you'd expect. If you only want the dedication benefit or one other feat, you're locked out of taking anything else or getting that benefit as early as its designed for. Some archetypes *only* have 3 feats or close to it. And even being totally in tune with an archetype's theme and not having more than one in mind often means that you're slightly specializing in it while missing out on nice-to-haves from your own class.
There's also something to be said for balancing. Sometimes striving for balance means being cautious with an ability's level or effects, then later making it more accessible or strong, something Paizo's virtually done on occasion with new weapons and feats that are a little stronger than or adjust the accessibility of old ones. Basically, power creep applied carefully. Seems likely that they decided Scout's Warning wasn't especially strong for Lv 4, making it safe to give as a bonus for the specialized.
In any case, niche protection is highly valued in this game, but it isn't ironclad. Most class features are completely blocked off from characters not of that class, or given in reduced form at a later level via specialization in archetype. (Flurry of Blows and Inspire Courage being given wholesale at mid-game is really nice, but you still can't really use Stunning Fist with the former and the latter is a slight strain on action economy unless you take Lingering Composition.) Class feats after 10 are in most cases totally unattainable unless shared with your class.
But, below those great heights is quite a lot of wiggle room picking up things other classes can do, and archetypes valuing the feat lock they grant (and occasional requirements) means those things are sometimes more potent than their original form, which doesn't stop classes with the original form from often being the best users of those archetypes anyway, so long as the benefit doesn't clash with what they've already got too much.
(And yeah, I've heard Beastmaster is just a good option for everyone who wants powerful 3rd actions, so it's probably a touch overtuned. But it's a very specific thing thematically, so I've never been interested in it. Most archetypes aren't like that, anyway.)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A *lot* of the opportunity cost is hidden in both having to take the dedication feat, and being locked out of other archetypes until you take 2 or more feats in it. Both elements can cut very hard into the total number of feats that you have, on top of that, and make seemingly lower level feats something you take at similar or later levels than their class counterparts.
Your Scout's Warning example is actually perfect to illustrate this, in theory you could get the benefit of Scout's Warning at 2 by taking the dedication, and a little extra on top, which seems great right? Except level 2 is the level you'd normally be looking at 'Quick Draw' 'Relentless Stalker' 'Hunter's Aim' or even a second of the very powerful level 1 feats, some of which make your actual combat loop more efficient. Level 4 looks a little more comfortable to me, depending on your build.
Now lets say you decided it was beneficial, or even just skipped it at 2 for Quickdraw or something and took the dedication at 4-- do you really even want Scout archetype as a whole? whatever archetype you get, you won't be done with it for two more even levels where you only take those feats, starting the archetype noticeably makes this more extreme-- level 8 if you take scout at 2, and level 10 if you take it at 4 (you can make this more efficient if you can take skill feats from your archetype, but that's not always possible.) So if you ever want anything from any other archetype, that's 8 or 10, with no (or 1) ranger class feat taken over half the game's levels.
So now, what could have been a single feat you took at 4, is half of your total class feats! Lets say you were taking it on your animal companion ranger, you won't have feats for your animal companion! This would also prohibit you from taking a weapon style archetype or spellcasting, or even just your later class feats.
Now lets say you know you want to be a hardcore scout type character, then the scout having benefits for your ranger is a *good* thing, because it lets you double down on that concept and actually be a better scout than the other ranger who isn't trying to specialize in that. Even if scouting is technically part of a ranger's genetics, that doesn't mean that every ranger has to be game's best scout-- and I'd argue that its nice to have an avenue to further specialize them. Its also possible Ranger could get more Scout tools later from new books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, these archetypes were written with the idea that someone from the class that mostly strongly resembles the archetype's niche might also take that archetype as a way to double down on that niche. If a ranger picks up cavalier or scout, it is good that the archetype offers the class something even with it's lower level feats.
For the scout thing: "No archetype should get a better feat at a lower level than a class feat" seems like a good design rule. It otherwise undermines the niche of the class.
For me, I think it should be the other way. A class can have several niches. The ranger especially I've personally described as "4 archetypes in a trenchcoat labeled 'Hunt Prey'". But an archetype should be a great deal more focused on its thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, I think it should be the other way. A class can have several niches. The ranger especially I've personally described as "4 archetypes in a trenchcoat labeled 'Hunt Prey'". But an archetype should be a great deal more focused on its thing.
Beastmaster, Snarecrafter, Scout, Dual-Weapon Warrior, Horizon Walker, Archer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion would be to worry less about names of things when it comes to getting your character together. Whether something is entitled "Ranger" or "Cavalier" or "Archetype" or "Class", just go with the idea of the character and use the rules to make that idea come to life. If that means you take Rogue with a Cavalier archetype, or a Wizard with Beastmaster archetype, or whatever, then that is fine as long as it supports your idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, I think it should be the other way. A class can have several niches. The ranger especially I've personally described as "4 archetypes in a trenchcoat labeled 'Hunt Prey'". But an archetype should be a great deal more focused on its thing.Beastmaster, Snarecrafter, Scout, Dual-Weapon Warrior, Horizon Walker, Archer?
And Bounty Hunter!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger.
Mounted combat isn't a thing that is associated with being a ranger, and the Cavalier's mounted combat doesn't encroach on the Ranger's animal companion which again isn't uniquely a Ranger feature.
TBH I think you overvalue Scout's Warning. In my experience, each member of the party is engaged in an exploration activity while in exploration mode and one of those is almost always Scout which completely negates that feat. I would never consider taking it. Although I might be missing something.
At my table, I have each player choose a default exploration activity that they automatically engage in during exploration mode so that way we don't have to waste time discussing unless someone is changing to a different activity.
TBH I think you overvalue Scout's Warning. In my experience, each member of the party is engaged in an exploration activity while in exploration mode and one of those is almost always Scout which completely negates that feat. I would never consider taking it. Although I might be missing something.
At my table, I have each player choose a default exploration activity that they automatically engage in during exploration mode so that way we don't have to waste time discussing unless someone is changing to a different activity.
Let's you gain the benefit of scouting while using the Track activity, which also usually lets you use Hunt Prey right off the bat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the name that is bothering me. It's that I feel a wizard shouldn't be out-done in casting by a fighter with a "spellcaster"archetype. A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger. The problem is, as others have noted, for a ranger, that's a wide range of things. Still, I think a ranger needs some niche protection and I'm feeling like there isn't anything a generic ranger can do that any other PC couldn't do better with the right archetype. Casters don't have this problem. Fighters and Champions don't have this problem. Rogues mostly don't have this problem (maybe?). But rangers do.
Niche protection is important in game design so each player can feel they have something special to contribute. It's not clear what the ranger has, if anything. In my mind, that's a design flaw.
A (kobold) ranger is hands-down the best snare crafter out there... because the ranger snare feats and the kobold snare feats and the snarecrafter snare feats all stack. Shiny, shiny snares.
Rangers with the right sort of hunt prey optimization have "aid ally" abilities that basically no one else can match.
No one else is going to match Impossible Flurry for straight-up number of attacks any time soon, and the rangersupport for "attack a bunch o times" is available early and cheap.
Legendary proficiency in Perception is a thing. Rangers get it. Investigators get it. Rogues get it. As far as I can tell, nobody else gets it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having an animal companion has been with the class since 1e as I recall. Beastmaster does it better. I see no reason to not allow the ranger to up his companion at the same level as druid and *every* archetype that gives one. I get they wanted the druid one to be better. But should have improved the druid one, not hosed the ranger.
To be able to do animal companions well, the ranger needs to take an archetype. Why bother having the feats at all? Animal companion isn't something you are going to dip into. If you don't level it up, it's useless. So every ranger taking any of those feats is very (very) likely going to do it via an archetype instead. I'm having a hard time seeing a level 8 build that takes the ranger animal companion and doesn't take beastmaster.
Feels like suboptimal design. Why have feats as part of a class if it's unwise to take them?
That's just not true, though. The beastmaster companion upgrades may be available slightly earlier than the ranger companion upgrades, but if you're only intending to have one companion ever anyway (an entirely reasonable choice) then the fact that Ranger gets it at level 1/6/10/16 really doesn't put them that far behind the beastmaster at 2/4/8/14, and in the meantime, the Ranger can take some other archetype (like, say, snarecrafter. Snarecrafting will happily eat the rest of your available class feats, and would not want to wait until you were done with beastmaster.
Also, if you do want to invest further... well, the ranger has some rather nice effects buffing their class-based animal companion... such as the built-in Hunt Prey benefits that others have mentioned.
Now, if you have no other archetypes that you might happen to want, and you're playing an outwit ranger or something, then sure, go for beastmaster. It's not like the Ranger version is always suboptimal, though.
To be able to do animal companions well, the ranger needs to take an archetype.
That's only true if you jettison the intent of the archetype while you comparison shop for the best numerical plus. This game is specifically designed to not be that game.
It is hard to take seriously the idea that the animal companion feats are so sub optimal that the only way a player will engage with them as a Ranger is to lock themselves into either a.) a dedication that limits them to only one of two animals that they must now ride into battle or b.) gaining a growing menagerie of animals rather than the one animal companion they were seeking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think you overvalue Scout's Warning. In my experience, each member of the party is engaged in an exploration activity while in exploration mode and one of those is almost always Scout which completely negates that feat. I would never consider taking it. Although I might be missing something.
At my table, I have each player choose a default exploration activity that they automatically engage in during exploration mode so that way we don't have to waste time discussing unless someone is changing to a different activity.
Let's you gain the benefit of scouting while using the Track activity, which also usually lets you use Hunt Prey right off the bat.
OH! Thanks, I knew I probably missed something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, some of the benefits are not immediately obvious. Like the free stride on "Swift Tracker" seems almost like an afterthought, but it is probably the main reason to pick up that feat.
Also note, the Swift Tracker feat plus Scout's Warning would essentially let the ranger do 3 exploration activities at once if they're legendary in survival.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't make an animal companion ranger without using the ranger animal companion bc an extra d8 on the first (most accurate) attack is too juicy for me to even stop and consider beast master. I want alpha strikes, I don't really care if the beast master animal companion climbs proficiency two levels early. My orc greataxe ranger, Thorgall Morchoppa, and his hyena, Shinzi, mollywhopped enemies in melee. Beast master wouldn't have given me that feeling
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate niche protection as an idea, personally. Someone who wants to make an animal companion a big part of their character identity should be able to do so. That they aren't a ranger isn't really important.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate niche protection as an idea, personally. Someone who wants to make an animal companion a big part of their character identity should be able to do so. That they aren't a ranger isn't really important.
I like to see loose niche protection. The class you choose ought to mean something. The ancestry you choose probably ought to mean something. If there's a class out there that really is losing out to archetypes in every area of specialty, that's kind of sad.
...but Paizo is pretty good at avoiding that. things like being able to unload 6 attacks in a single round at -2? No one but a Ranger is going to be fielding that one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't make an animal companion ranger without using the ranger animal companion bc an extra d8 on the first (most accurate) attack is too juicy for me to even stop and consider beast master. I want alpha strikes, I don't really care if the beast master animal companion climbs proficiency two levels early. My orc greataxe ranger, Thorgall Morchoppa, and his hyena, Shinzi, mollywhopped enemies in melee. Beast master wouldn't have given me that feelingWe have an Iruxi ranger with a riding drake companion in our AoA game, and they have been missing out on the fact that their companion gets their hunt prey benefits this entire time. I'm looking forward to telling them and hearing their head explode at the possibility of increased damage. They've not gone melee though, instead splitting their feats between their drake and fighting with a crossbow.
Oh yea it's great. Hunters edge on your AC is a blast. I love big meaty hits coming from your PCs fuzz buddy. Flurry edge on an AC is one I havnt seen or tried. I'm guessing that if you wanna dual wield AND have a pet then those super accurate second strikes can start to pay dividends late game on your AC. Maybe I'd go beast master if I was outwit edge and wanted an AC? Even then, the idea of an outwit ranger and his ranger feat wolf sneaking on their target with outwit bonuses seems pretty cool. Small detour, but I love the ranger so much in P2E; ranger and monk were the two classes that convinced me to switch from 5e bc my two favorite classes felt so much better in this game.
I feel like the Ranger probably should have been split into two distinct classes that each has more focus than the current class does.
The Hunter who's focused on combat and marking targets and the Woodsman which is focused on being the rugged outdoorsman. Then you could properly protect their niches while still allowing people to play the various things that Ranger has come to mean in D&D-style fantasy games.
Except Ranger in PF1 had nothing to do with woodsland. There were multiple that were very much urban or some other non-forest terrain.
Woodsman can be taken to mean outdoorsman. I live in a wooded area so that's the term I most often use for the concept.
Uban rangers have usually been variant archetypes anyway and should probably stay that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the motivation, but having a feat that anyone can take be better than a feat from a class makes it hard to justify taking the feat from the class. Archetype feats shouldn't be better than a class feat.I think at least part of the issue here is that you're confused as to which classes an animal companion is a larger part of the identity for... because Rangers, while a few famously do have companions, are borrowing the theme from Druids.
And Cavalier is similarly a (used to be class but now just an) archetype defined more by the mount (companion) than anything else.
So you're kind of looking at Ranger, and effectively saying "but why does a Fighter get better weapon proficiency? Using weapons is "ranger things."
The dedication archetype has to be better or else no one would really bother using it.
And the cavalier version is much more restricted. I know on paper it sounds better, but locking you out of other dedications is a big deal.
And if you truly didn't have other dedications you're interested in, you could take Cavalier by sacrificing a few class feats.
But honestly, it's a slight upgrade over the Ranger's version in terms of level by the trade off is a more limited selection of companion and having to spend class feats to get out of the dedication if you want another. And lets remember the cavalier is supposed to be more focused on their companion than the ranger.
As for the scout thing, it's very similar. Ranger's can be scouts, but they are not as scouting focused as the archetype.
Archetypes are meant to be much more specific into a niche than any of the classes. That's why they need to have abilities that are better than what's available to a generic class, but usually have restrictions or limitations that make them less generally useful. So it's great for the specific thing you want to do, but not all around better.
And in the case of your ranger, taking the cavalier dedication would stop you from also being a scout until you've finished taking the required number of feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Ranger probably should have been split into two distinct classes that each has more focus than the current class does.
The Hunter who's focused on combat and marking targets and the Woodsman which is focused on being the rugged outdoorsman. Then you could properly protect their niches while still allowing people to play the various things that Ranger has come to mean in D&D-style fantasy games.
You don't need a dedicated class to be a "Woodsman," though. Really, just getting good proficiency with the Survival skill is enough. Maybe Nature too.
You could say kind of the same thing about the Fighter... most of the weapon-style archetypes just wholesale poach Fighter feats. I guess that the fighter is so broadly defined and also so strong doesn't make it feel the same though.
TBH the only one I don't really like comparatively is snarecrafter, just but mostly because I think the expert and level 4 requirements on snare specialist feel a little harsh.
Not in Pathfinder. Pathfinder Rangers have always been versatile and terrain agnostic from core.
Where did I ever mention a specific terrain type?
I'm saying that there should be a hunter class all about single-minded pursuit of his chosen foes and an outdoorsy class all about animals and being the survivalist. If you keep trying to blend more concepts back into the ranger it just ends up never having one thing to hang its hat on.