| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. I like your guide. The comments I have are mostly around things to add. But that is a never ending task.
I do agree that the Outwit ranger is Ok. I think its probably worth mentioning its role as a the most tank like of the Ranger styles. Yes it would be a lot more popular if they took the level 10 Master Monster Hunter and made it level 6 say. Suddenly it would make sense and be viable.
Voluntary Flaws is not an optional rule. So you can start with and 18 Strength Sprite or an 18 Dex Poppet if you want too. Yes its costs but its not that terrible. So I think it is important to mention when you are talking about ancestries. My issue with them is what the GM feels about how they fit into the theme of his game.
There is a lot more to do on animal companions. Here is my section out of my Druids Guide to Animal companions
Good to have some free rangery guide stuff out there for PF2e, roquepo. ;)
Another great thing about orc is access to the riding drake with an ancestry feat (if you want one) and a feat to give your AC a charge of your orc ferocity. They're one of the best beast tamer ancestries so if your ranger has a pet (and you wanna go melee or a propulsive bow) orcs are very good with them. I also just really vibe with the thought of an orc pc as a rugged outdoorsy type who's generally curt and grumpy but has a soft spot for their lil buddy. Hits all the ranger notes for me.
Voluntary Flaws is not an optional rule. So you can start with and 18 Strength Sprite or an 18 Dex Poppet if you want too. Yes its costs but its not that terrible. So I think it is important to mention when you are talking about ancestries. My issue with them is what the GM feels about how they fit into the theme of his game.
I went over it in the other guide and somehow I thought I also mentioned here. The intent was to tell exactly that, that stats are important but everything can work thanks to the additional flaws system. Will edit later, thanks.
There is a lot more to do on animal companions. Here is my section out of my Druids Guide to Animal companionsPlan is to expand the tactics section the most and the Animal companion department will be the first one I will touch. I just wanted to have the guide out as soon as possible, the other Ranger guides are very outdated.
Another great thing about orc is access to the riding drake with an ancestry feat (if you want one) and a feat to give your AC a charge of your orc ferocity. They're one of the best beast tamer ancestries so if your ranger has a pet (and you wanna go melee or a propulsive bow) orcs are very good with them. I also just really vibe with the thought of an orc pc as a rugged outdoorsy type who's generally curt and grumpy but has a soft spot for their lil buddy. Hits all the ranger notes for me.
I missed those, first time I notice them. The ferocity one seems good but Orc feats are extremely stacked, I'll have to think about them a bit.
... the other Ranger guides are very outdated...
well, that is a bit unkind, I made one just in october xD
Not a very good one, I'll give you that but still
... the other Ranger guides are very outdated...well, that is a bit unkind, I made one just in october xD
Not a very good one, I'll give you that but still
Last time I checked they were outdated*
Didn't know someone beat me to it. I want to read yours, where can I find it?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... the other Ranger guides are very outdated...well, that is a bit unkind, I made one just in october xD
Not a very good one, I'll give you that but stillLast time I checked they were outdated*
Didn't know someone beat me to it. I want to read yours, where can I find it?
sure thing, there you go guide
i suggest you to temper your expectations though xDReally like your guide btw, i will give you some feedback when i find some time
I have some constructive criticism, but it's not clear from your post that you are looking for feedback, so I'll hold off until I know you're interested.I made a Ranger guide, hope it is useful.
I will update it periodically until it is as complete as the Bard guide I made last year. if you spot any mistake or errata let me know.
Any feedback is appreciated, specially if it concerns format, use of english or clarity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Your rating feats/abilities, but a lot of one scores something depends on specific criteria. You do, in some cases, account for the different edges, but there are more facets or reasons to choose or not choose a feat other than just Edge. It would help if you identified your default Ranger in terms of what you're expecting the class to do: Frontline, ranged, support are a good place to start.
I gave those numbers as a generalization given to help people identify things easily, What is important is what I say about the feats (in mine and every guide I believe, an arbitrary number without context means nothing). I took into consideration the 5 proposed weapon + edge combinations I listed after the edges and rated everything acording to those, I should make that clear.
I do see you're generally arguing Precision for ranged/switching, Flurry for melee, Outwit for Support, but you sometimes blur the lines and that tends to blur the ratings.
The only thing I consider true there is that I see the Outwit as a Support edge. I stated several times that Precision works for mostly everything (you can play a dual wielding Precision Ranger and it will work fine) and one of the listed builds is a ranged flurry build. I didn't try to analyze them only in those roles.
2. I'll point out that i have been playing rangers since the launch of PF2, and IME, this is a very disjointed class. There is a tremendous lack of synergy in the feat designs. Some may see that as a feature i.e. there's no critical path for a build, but others may feel like the class never really comes together.
While true, I don't thing this is useful for a guide. I want to help people build their Ranger and offer my perspective on what works best. That is something related to how well the class is designed.
3. "Rangers excel at focusing on a single enemy due to their Hunter’s Edge, they put the eye on one target and hunt it until they are no more" The Ranger doesn't "excel" at single target focus. IMO, it would be more accurate to say the Ranger is constrained to single target focus. The Ranger's single target damage isn't any better than any other classes single target damage, and notably worse than the Fighters or Barbarians, and probably the Rogue (with Sneak Attack and Dex to Damage).
What is demonstrably true is that the ranger essentially sucks at attacking anything that isn't designated as Prey (Outwit Ranger excluded...it sucks regardless). Even on Prey, the Ranger does not out damage a Fighter. So I submit that using the word "excel" is not entirely accurate and arguably misleading.
Worse than Fighter and Barbarian isn't a bad spot to land taking in consideration that you also have ways to boost your skills, more base skills and things like Warden's Boon. Rogue deals less damage in general unless they can always expend 2 actions attacking (which just brings it to par). I can change the word if you think it is not adecuate, though.
3. "Depending on the decisions you make in character creation, you may end up with a precise archer, a deadly two weapon fighter, a 2-handed weapon wielder or even a mix of them all, because this class is also really good at mixing tactics" The Ranger has no 2-handed weapon support. So that's not an intended Style path. While you can certainly go that route, that would be true for any class.
That no feat has a line mentioning 2 handed weapons doesn't mean Ranger does not synergize with 2 weapons. An optimized outwit Ranger for sure uses one.
I would also call these "combat styles" as opposed to tactics and question the basis for saying the class is 'really good" at mixing them. Any class can switch between weapons in a single fight. But the Ranger is the one class whose combat feats really make you choose one combat style over another because of the Prey mechanic. Ranger's melee feats or ranged feats are limited to Prey. That mean when you're attacking in mode that doesn't use a Prey supported feat, your combat prowess drops precipitously. So while it looks like the class supports mixing styles, it actually penalizes you for doing that.
All edges apply with any weapon and work regardless of the type of strikes you make, due to how the class works you can freely upgrade both STR and DEX and they have proficiency with all martial weapons and have no limitations to use ranged or melee weapons. Nothing stops you for picking both melee and ranged oriented feats. they are really good at switching from ranged to melee with most builds if you make space for some feats that support this.
And as an FYI, Quickdraw is a risk feat for switch hitting because it has the Manipulate trait and will trigger an AoO if the enemy has one. You can't Quickdraw away from the enemy, you have to use it standing next to the enemy.
AoO I believe is there from 15 to 30-ish percent of monsters from low to high levels. It is a bit of an stretch to call it a risk. Moreover, when you switch from ranged to melee (the case you are talking about) most of the time you are doing it to soak damage. Besides, most of the time someone has to trigger AoO to know the enemy has it, better you than the Wizard.
4. Action economy. Perhaps the biggest impediment to the Ranger class (beyond a lack of purpose as a Ranger) is the action economy. You don't really address it, IMO.
Don't think we will ever agree here.
5. Outwit. The Outwit Ranger is just a flat out bad choice, in all cases. It might make sense if you are trying to build a Lore master or something that isn't really a Ranger per se, but if you're staying Ranger. The Edge is a 1/5. Why?
Same as before, we will have to agree to disagree here. If the GM gives you nothing useful they are not giving you an "Useful clue about your situation" and that is not fault of the edge. +1 to attacks is meaningless yet Bard is universally praised because of it. A +1 to AC is worthless but people everywere are singing the praises of the Sentinel dedication and even calling GMs to ban the dedication. And last but not least, why the heck would you not invest in STR as an Outwit?
6. Precision vs Flurry. During the playtest, Rangers only had Flurry. Looking at the class design, it seemed obvious that all the Ranger combat feats were designed around balancing Flurry via the action economy. I, along with some other, complained long and hard about how bad this problem was and that Flurry did not comport with a "hunt" paradigm (I also said Rangers should be more clever than other martials, which is why I believe they gave us Outwit). Paizo responded by giving us Precision.
Because it is my belief (I have no facts) that Precision was added after the Playtest and not designed prior, the Ranger feats were not (re)balanced around it. As a result Precision avoid a lot of the action economy constraints that limit Flurry. Does it still balance out? I don't know. But when you look at Animal Companions, they get NOTHING from Flurry if they attack on their own, where as they do get Precision damage. There other feats where they benefit is asymmetrical
Again, I believe this is something apropriate to bring in a class design discussion, not in a class guide.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoO I believe is there from 15% to 30-ish percent of monsters from low to high levels. It is a bit of an stretch to call it a risk. Besides, someone has to trigger AoO to know the enemy has it most of the time, better you than the Wizard.N N 959 wrote:
And as an FYI, Quickdraw is a risk feat for switch hitting because it has the Manipulate trait and will trigger an AoO if the enemy has one. You can't Quickdraw away from the enemy, you have to use it standing next to the enemy.
I agree with roquepo.
This type of thinking is paranoia and is a hang over from previous editions. Unless you are in a city campaign where all your enemies are built like PCs you are not going to run into that many opponents with attack of opportunity. If you do they look tend to like soldiers, so you can pick it.Yes specific campaigns may vary and there are a few more at very high level. But I'm just not seeing it all that often.
Same as before, we will have to agree to disagree here. If the GM gives you nothing useful they are not giving you an "Useful clue about your situation" and that is not fault of the edge. +1 to attacks is meaningless yet Bard is universally praised because of it. A +1 to AC is worthless but people everywere are singing the praises of the Sentinel dedication and even calling GMs to ban the dedication. And last but not least, why the heck would you not invest in STR as an Outwit?
5. Outwit. The Outwit Ranger is just a flat out bad choice, in all cases. It might make sense if you are trying to build a Lore master or something that isn't really a Ranger per se, but if you're staying Ranger. The Edge is a 1/5. Why?
I agree if Recall Knowledge is not a good action choice in combat because you GM is giving our poor information then its a problem that affects a lot of classes. GMs need to be reasonable and accept the Recall Knowledge is supposed to be fit for purpose, and play it in a way that is functional. The rules say to do that. There is little point complaining that there is a flat tyre on my car and it won't go so I'm not using it, when you can just choose to agree that the tyre is not flat and keep on going. GM are instructed to do this.
Secondly if its not changing your actions, then that is a fault of narrow design on the party of the rest of the party or just lazy gaming. Which we can all fall into sometimes. Its much more fun if they try to respond to the situation.
4. Action economy. Perhaps the biggest impediment to the Ranger class (beyond a lack of purpose as a Ranger) is the action economy. You don't really address it, IMO.
Don't think we will ever agree here.
I'm going to side with N N 959 here. My groups tend to focus fire extremely well, so Rangers have to hunt prey almost every round. It gets tiresome and feels like you have one less action that everyone else.
This is the reason I don't like Rangers much in PF2.
4. Action economy. Perhaps the biggest impediment to the Ranger class (beyond a lack of purpose as a Ranger) is the action economy. You don't really address it, IMO.
Don't think we will ever agree here.
I'm going to side with N N 959 here. My groups tend to focus fire extremely well, so Rangers have to hunt prey almost every round. It gets tiresome and feels like you have one less action that everyone else.
This is the reason I don't like Rangers much in PF2.
Honestly I've only seen this problem fighting a bunch of lower level enemies and in my experience that does not happen that often. When fighting against on level enemies or slighly higher level than you, downing one in 2 turns is not that common and something that can only happen with above average rolls. At that point you will probably have the fight completely under control so I don't see needing to switch targets as a problem. I should probably mention it, though.
Edit: Now that I think of it, do you both play with groups of 5+ people? I can see this issue being way worse the more players there are and I think that is something really important to adress.
Edit: Now that I think of it, do you both play with parties of 5+ people? I can see this issue being way worse the more players there are and I think that is something really important to adress.
Agreed it is party size dependant. I'm currently GMing with 6 PCs. I'd like Rangers in a party of 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4. Action economy. Perhaps the biggest impediment to the Ranger class (beyond a lack of purpose as a Ranger) is the action economy. You don't really address it, IMO.
Don't think we will ever agree here.
I'm going to side with N N 959 here. My groups tend to focus fire extremely well, so Rangers have to hunt prey almost every round. It gets tiresome and feels like you have one less action that everyone else.
This is the reason I don't like Rangers much in PF2.
For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.
I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.
4. Action economy. Perhaps the biggest impediment to the Ranger class (beyond a lack of purpose as a Ranger) is the action economy. You don't really address it, IMO.
Don't think we will ever agree here.
I'm going to side with N N 959 here. My groups tend to focus fire extremely well, so Rangers have to hunt prey almost every round. It gets tiresome and feels like you have one less action that everyone else.
This is the reason I don't like Rangers much in PF2.
For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.
I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.
Flurry rangers can get the best of both worlds (as I think is noted in the guide). First attack on party's target to help focus and subsequent attacks on Prey to soften them up for after.
For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.
I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.
But then I feel inefficient. Focus fire is the right tactic. I'm not getting a bonus by firing on a different target, just covering a weakness.
But then I feel inefficient. Focus fire is the right tactic. I'm not getting a bonus by firing on a different target, just covering a weakness.For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.
I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.
I frankly never felt it as too much of an issue (even though I have a 7 people party).
Low levels are harder since enemies tend to die faster but rangers in my experience just need to apply some tactics:-attack a different target. Usually focus firing a single enemy is more efficent but i find that dividing the enemy forces can also be a good tactic, expecially at higher levels when monsters start getting quite a bit of aoe abilities.
-scouting ahead and using hunt prey out of combat. Stealth is of course quite important and some builds could not manage to but as a general rule rangers are quite good scouts.
-investing in action economy improving feats. Besides flurry rangers that have a built in good action economy, everyone can get something that helps a bit (albeit at higher levels).
When you go past level 10 then enemies tend to be quite hard to kill, even if they are lvl-2 unless someone specializes in save or die effects like scare to death, wich is another issue altoghether.
I love the ''you want optimized damage? play a fighter'' angle.
I find it says everything you need to know about the ranger. Rangers are strong versatile martials with decent damage, but they're not the best, that's not why you're playing them.
Great guide overall, wish it was in the guide to guides.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great guide overall, wish it was in the guide to guides.
Good News!
Added to the 2e Guide to the Guides!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then I feel inefficient. Focus fire is the right tactic. I'm not getting a bonus by firing on a different target, just covering a weakness.For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.
I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.
I feel it is an efficient way to use the ranger.
I've read the rangers complaint by some on the board, yet the class is extremely popular with my group and feels powerful in play. Precision and flurry allow a ranger to switch between ranged and melee easily. They get high Perception which makes them good for a rogue type roll. 10 hit points per level. Good saves. Strong movement through difficult terrain. Good feats.
Hunt Prey does have the action cost, but you often make up for that with Hunted Shot and the melee version of it which lets you make two attacks with one action. You can easily build to Hunt Prey on two targets with the means to give someone else your hunter's edge should you be fighting one target.
The ranger feels like a good class you can build in a powerful way that improves as you level up. My biggest complaint for the ranger is the lack of an individually powerful lvl 20 feat. Triple Prey with the ability to give two allies your Edge bonus seems like the best and most obvious level 20 feat unless you're playing some long range bow assassin who will often shoot from a crazy range.
I don't have many complaints about the range. It plays strong in a group both individually and group abilities. It has a lot of strong builds. No one feels like they're not effective as a ranger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Precision and flurry allow a ranger to switch between ranged and melee easily.So does the Fighter's +2, and the Barbarians Rage, and the Rogues Sneak attack. Precision and Flurry aren't actually allowing anything. Anyone can switch between melee and ranged. My Investigator can switch with ease.
But the Ranger has to additionally pick feats to compensate for having to Hunt Prey and those feats are different for melee and ranged. So in actuality, it cost a Ranger more to switch than it would other martials Or put another way, the opportunity cost for switching is much higher for the Ranger and their effectiveness drops even more if they don't take class feats to support both. Those class feats purchased with the same currency that the class has to purchase its utility and narrative facets. You can't get it all.
No one feels like they're not effective as a ranger.i know plenty of people who feel the class underperforms.
The fighter's +2 encourages specialization in a weapon group.
Rogue sneak attack is limited to certain types of weapons and hard to set up at range.
Barbarian rage is also best in melee.
Ranger's edge has no such limitations. Flurry or Precision works with ranged or melee weapons of any size or kind. At the moment I run a ranger with a bow and a two-handed d12 weapon for melee and switch easily with Precision adding to the damage of either with ease.
And my group doesn't feel the ranger underperforms. They like the ranger and try to use it to maximize it's abilities.
But we might play differently than your group. Our group likes to use ranged attacks to soften targets and I've read tons of groups on here view ranged weapons as inferior to martial. That leads me to believe they are starting encounters at a much closer distance than us.
We tend to use Stealth heavily, engage at 100 feet plus when possible, and have zero problem letting monsters come to us. Rangers are very good at stealthing, attacking from range, and scouting. They have a lot of very good builds that make them a very useful asset to a party.
There is also a huge underestimation of the action saving power of ranged weapons in these discussions. A ranger capable of attacking across a field of battle with no movement necessary simply by marking a target is an action saving advantage. Movement from target to target takes up actions, whereas a ranger archer has no such need. They move from target to target marking within 200 feet of targets. Parties that don't take advantage of this are going to find the ranger performs with inferior ability. Parties that do operate with this in mind will find the ranger quite powerful.
I know a lot of DMs line things up for players to easily attack new targets without spending move actions. I do not when I DM. My group generally does not. So being able to move from target to target with a single action within 200 feet or attack mobile targets like flying dragons or other flying creatures without moving is quite nice.
I would like to see how people are using the ranger and how the DM is setting up the battlefield. These can be factors in underperformance if Stealth and range is not being taken advantage of.
The mechanics of the ranger are not weak. You have to think about how they work and how to take advantage of that in a party. Those that do take the time to do this will find the ranger a high performing class with lots of interesting builds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every class pivot has limitations and the Edges are no different. Flurry requires that you must make at least two attacks per round. This means if you don't use TWF or a Reload 0 weapons and take the appropriate feat, you're paying an action tax. Honestly, in some cases, you're going to do more damage NOT designating a Prey (especially a 2 handing Outwit Ranger). The Ranger is the only class that can make that claim. In addition, a Flurry Ranger is far better served going Reload 0 to maximize it's chance at getting three and four attacks in a round.
Precision doesn't work against some creatures, but yes, because it was added after the class was designed it avoids a lot of the intended nerf from Hunt Prey. But it still requires that you Hunt Prey and that has a huge impact on the class throughout that overwhelming experience of the players. Double Prey doesn't come along until 12 at which point you're paying a huge opportunity cost to possibly save one action on your next target.
It does not change the edges work with all types of weapons without an additional feat investment. It doesn't matter whether you're using melee or ranged with the edges. It is a low feat cost to gain the action economy advantage with either bow or two weapons.
Yes, Precision is flat out better for switching than Flurry. That doesn't make the Ranger better at switching than other classes. You're over looking the fact that you're focused on your Prey. If your Prey isn't in melee range, then you aren't switching to some other target that is in melee. If your Prey stays in melee, you aren't switching to some other target that is at range. If your Prey is moving in and out, you're burning actions switching, or you're burning actions designating a new Prey.
When I say switching, I mean switching between ranged and melee attacks. Not switching targets.
I'm not sure I've ever had a PFS or AP encounter at 100+' feet. But that just puts more value on switching, which is again not something limited to the Ranger.
Then this is going to devalue stealthy ranged attackers like the ranger who is very good at stealthing up to a target or targets, marking them from range given Hunt Prey has no limit on distance, and hammering them while moving. They are designed for skirmishing. If you don't allow skirmishing, then they will appear less effective than a class who pretty much hammers.
Drawing creatures in with a few rounds of ranged attacks and then switching to melee should you need to is a useful ranger tactic I've used more than a few times.
Yes, and that's exactly why Flurry works better for Ranged. But not moving also subjects the Ranger to cover penalties and if you use a longbow, you're frequently compelled to move. So while there are opportunities to get more attack (save actions) it's frequently comes at a trade-off.
It takes two feats to obtain Point Blank Shot if you don't want to move. I have found no trade off save in tight rooms.
I've never seen Stealth scouting used effectively or consistently in PF1, PF2, or 5e. Scouting ahead is anti-collaborative at a table with 4-5 other players who aren't scouting ahead. I've seen GMs actively discourage the party from splitting up So yes, if you're frequently scouting ahead of combat, designating a prey before Initiative, you're saving some actions. I've never seen a GM or scenario support this type of activity on any type of nominal basis.
I have seen it used effectively in every edition.
Anti-collaborative? It 's anti-collaborative to force a character who operates best by stealthy skirmishing into constantly fighting like some martial melee character who always wants to close quickly and swing.
Why do you get to punish the skirmisher rather than use their abilities in a productive fashion with the group?
I allow this and encourage it all the time with my PCs and I do it all the time. If I were at your table, I would tell the entire group and party that Stealth is going to be used or I'm out of the game. I don't tolerate bad play due to some kind of group consensus that amounts to "Move to next room so I can start swinging."
If I'm playing a rogue or a ranger, then I'm stealth scouting often. I'm pulling the monsters to an advantageous position for us, not for the DM. The DM is not dictating terms to me the PC, I'm telling them what I'm doing.
Stealth is a skill I get on every character, even my casters given how easy it is to obtain. We use group stealth tactics and control engagement range and the pace of movement through dungeons.
It doesn't take that long to do. I have no idea why more players don't employ stealth and skirmish tactics as it allows greater control of the battlefield and let's you favorably set up the battlefield. It can be done quite quickly by someone surveying the map and letting the DM know where they're moving in formation and who is stealthing ahead, usually a high perception and high stealth class.
You can set up a single point within a nexus of rooms or areas allowing the scout to quickly move to an area, check it, and return with recon about the area. Then set up the attack schemes while doing it.
If you're not going to do this, then I guess the ranger is inferior since it is built to be a scouting, skirmishing class whose advantages are things like tracking an enemy and marking them during the track, scouting areas, and operating with advanced knowledge of enemies.
If you're not going to use the class abilities in an advantageous way, not sure why you like playing the class. Might as well play some straight up martial like a fighter or a barbarian. They keep it simple. See something, kill it. That ain't the ranger. Ranger sets up better operating like a stealthy ranger tracking enemies, marking them while tracking, and then using ranged or melee according to circumstance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly though, your approach is very typical of guides.
When dealing with a complex matter, like rating abilities in a ttrpg guide, you can't be precise with just numbers. There is no way to rate something like a feat in a way that really matters besides guiving a written opinion.
So then I am looking at your text, but your perspective is kind of unclear. Is Outwit a 3/5 overall, or only if I want to play a 2 handed build?
In most guides ratings mean just a vague "how I feel about this option" for a reason. it is a 3/5 because overall I think it is a fine option, and then I go and elaborate there, in the feats that relate to that specific edge and in the sample build I posted later why.
I don't see how that is reflected in the numbers. For example, you have Animal Companion 4/5 and called the benefit "insane."
Insane at level 1. Don't omit things, please. Very few options can compete at low levels with an Animal Companion. They have 2/3rds of your health pool and are 1 or 2 points behind of your to hit and AC. Even after factoring the reduced actions that's like half a PC worth of power in one feat.
It's not really feasible to evaluate every facet/aspect
And I'm not. As I said, I'm evaluating things from the lens of those 5 edge + weapon(s) combinations. Despite mentioning earlier that you can play a Dual wielder with precision edge I did not take that in consideration to rate anything. If I understand correctly, you are telling me that you think it would be better if I just posted the 5 different builds and go more deep into them. I don't believe that is a class guide.
About that last phrase, I've either played, GMd for or seen in play the 5 weapon + edge combinations I based the guide on. Of course I need to theorycraft here and there, it is unrealistic to expect someone to have experience with everything you have to cover in a class guide. For example, for the snares section I had to ask here and in reddit because I haven't seen them in play ever.
I quoted your section about a Ranger excelling at single target and countered by saying the Ranger is actually worse at that than other martials
I already said that I probably missused the word "excel". What i wanted to convey is that Rangers thrive when they are able to focus on one single target.
It's not a function of weapons and Edges, it's a function of Feat support and Hunt Prey
About weapon switching between ranged and melee, let's go backwards. Fighter has to stick to a single weapon type, rogue has problems getting the flat footed condition at range without external support, Barbarian can only use throwing weapons, has to pick a feat for it and don't has the option to go DEX, Monk has to enter a stance and then draw a bow or use a shuriken, Champion is expected to dump DEX... Of course Ranger has limitations, all classes have them, but when talking about weapon switching, the limitations they have are a non-issue compared with the others. Besides, I wouldn't call picking Twin Takedown (which isn't even necessary for Precision ranged builds to be able to switch), Hunted Shot and Quick Draw as "too many feats". With a gauntlet you only need 1 Quick Draw to be able to Dual Wield too.
Another advantage and/or historical reason to switch in PF1 is that if you approach the monster, you going to give it a Full Round of attacks. If it approachs you, it gets one attack and you'll get the full round (with quickdraw).
I mean, this is the starting line of weapon switching.
Once enemies close down, you have to decide between going back and keep using ranged or stay in and use a melee weapon. The real benefit of staying in is being another body there so the enemies get less benefits going for the true backline, the casters. If they do so, you waste no actions pulling your ranged weapon back, if they don't, better for your group.
Scouting ahead is anti-collaborative at a table with 4-5 other players who aren't scouting ahead
Far from the truth. You can and should always involve the rest of the party when scouting. Early on it can be difficult due to low resources and abilities, but as the game progresses everyone can collaborate with this. using Recall Knowledge, casting divination and illusion spells, making distractions, setting up signals to be coordinated, setting ambushes together...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're adding in PFS experience here - I've been playing PFS since 2015, and have regularly seen scouting at the table, both in the games I've played and in the (far more numerous) games I've run :) Your experiences aren't universal, it's fine to accept that some people will play the game in a way that gets more out of any given class.
So you've stopped the game and made the other five players do nothing while one player searches all the rooms, finds all the creatures, and then returns to the party?
You have a weird idea of what scouting entails. You don’t need to hog the spotlight to scout. Is that what you want when you complain about your Rangers not getting a chance to scout?
So you've stopped the game and made the other five players do nothing while one player searches all the rooms, finds all the creatures, and then returns to the party? If not, then what are you counting as "scouting"?
I don't read that anyone here is "geting more" out of the class (except if their GM is letting them solo the dungeon while everyone else waits). I read that they are valuing the experience differently. Which is fine.
I never said my experiences were "universal" so please don't put words in my mouth.
It isn't that intensive if you are used to doing it. Stop trying to make it sound like scouting bogs things down when it doesn't. It's very easy to set up. The information is processed very quickly.
You act like making a stealth check to move up to a door is some kind of time consuming activity. It amounts to little more than, "I stealth up to the door. I check the door for traps and listen at the door." Takes not much time at all.
You're not scouting the entire dungeon while the group waits. You're moving like a Spec Ops team with a point man. Point man moves around 50 feet ahead or so depending on the area. If they listen or find anything, they alert the group. They make some quick stealth and survival checks to see what is going on. Decision on how to set up the attack is quickly made.
Our group roles always including point man/scout. We don't like walking into hazards or ambushes. And we don't like letting the enemy control the battlefield.
Sound tactical use of stealth and scouting is as helpful to the success as spellcasting or buffing. It's not time intensive. It's a few rolls and a short amount of game time.
Edges working is not what defines switch hitting. You keep coming back to that as for why the Ranger is a better switch hitter. I'm afraid that doesn't make it so. Maybe for you, but not on any objective level.
I'm not sure how you would measure that objectively. My test would be does this ability work equally well with a melee or ranged weapon of any kind? If the answer is yes, then I'm very good at switching between melee and ranged. If someone comes in melee range, then I switch my prey next action, pull out my melee weapon, and go to down or the same with ranged. Not real hard for a ranger.
It is not a low "cost" feat. It's a low level feat. Because the Ranger has to purchase its narrative abilities, spell casting, and combat all from the same resource, all the feats come at a high opportunity cost. Other classes don't have this same problem or least not to the same extent.
No. They don't. Skill feats can build out narrative feats. Why do you keep saying this stuff like it's true when I have spent the feats to get these things myself and not had any reduction in capability. I've literally done this with my ranger.
You take Archer Dedication which picks you up Weapon Critical Specialization even on non-Prey and buy Point Blank Shot. All done. Use Natural Ambition if a human for Gravity Weapon or Hunted Shot, all done.
I think you missed the point. A Ranger is compelled to attack its Prey. If your Prey stays at range, but another target comes into melee, you essentially screw yourself over switching to melee. Other classes don't have this problem.
I play a ranger. They are not compelled to attack their prey. For a precision ranger, after you attack your prey once you can pretty much attack whoever else you want and no reduction in ability. Flurry is more focused on prey, but even a Flurry ranger could switch and take a minor reduction that everyone else takes in hit penalty.
Point Blank Shot is not a Ranger feat. This is discussion about Ranger feats in a guide. It's not a guide on how to build an archer.
It's a discussion of the ranger class and ways to optimize it.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The many in my group like a stealthy skirmisher who can bring them back information on what's in the room from a Survival tracking check and if the door is trapped or what is in the room, then letting the group set up to best deal with that like letting the Champion open the door while the skirmishing ranger sets up in back so the don't have to deal with volley.
I'm glad you've found group where the entire party can stealth as well as the ranger or a GM that will routinely make five players do nothing while one gets to keep playing.
It doesn't work like this and I'm not sure why you think it does. No one is siting there while you scout the entire dungeon, map it out, camp for lunch, scout some more, then come back the next day with full information on the camp. It's a mobile point man scout who moves in front of the group scouting as they move.
In dungeons this usually isn't too far ahead. Outdoors a little farther, but still just far enough to coordinate quickly with the group. It's a military-style scouting point man we've always considered an important group role that helps protect against hazards, control engagement, and provide information to the party as they move.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you've stopped the game and made the other five players do nothing while one player searches all the rooms, finds all the creatures, and then returns to the party? If not, then what are you counting as "scouting"?
I don't read that anyone here is "geting more" out of the class (except if their GM is letting them solo the dungeon while everyone else waits). I read that they are valuing the experience differently. Which is fine.
I never said my experiences were "universal" so please don't put words in my mouth.
Quite interesting to suggest I put words in your mouth when I was pointing out that you were assuming your experiences were true for everyone else, and then immediately tell me that "scouting" means "soloing the dungeon while everyone else waits". This was all in the context of you replying to someone claiming that the stealth abilities of the rangers they've played let them start the fight at ~100 feet distance, and with a Hunt Prey action already taken, quite regularly. That's a far cry from searching all the rooms in a dungeon on your own, and is something that I do not think is particularly unlikely to occur in non-dungeon settings. I also think it's pretty clear that someone who is getting the equivalent of ~3-4 extra actions (the enemy Striding up to you, plus the Hunt Prey) before the start of each combat is getting more out of a class chassis - that's quite a boost in power when it occurs.
A +1 AC bonus to your prey is worthless when you're not being attacked by your Prey and nearly so if you are.
...
you're going to get hit by non-prey more than prey. Sure, it might save you from being crit by a boss....1 out of 20 attacks, but that's the high point.
Against tough monsters (that need only a nat 2-9 to hit you), you're going to save both a crit 1 out of 20, plus a hit 1 out of 20.
If a boss hits you on a nat 7, you're cutting crits by 25% and hits by 7%. It's really good for an ability you get at Level 1 and costs 1 action with no resources used.
If they can only crit you on a 19 or 20, that is still only going to benefit you 1 out of 20 times.
...
The GM has to roll a 19 for that +1 to benefit you.
Or a 9.
|
|
This was all in the context of you replying to someone claiming that the stealth abilities of the rangers they've played let them start the fight at ~100 feet distance, and with a Hunt Prey action already taken, quite regularly.Starting a combat at 100 feat has nothing to do with Stealth and everything to do with the encounter map. How many of your PFS combats start with combatants 100+ feet apart?
That's a far cry from searching all the rooms in a dungeon on your own, and is something that I do not think is particularly unlikely to occur in non-dungeon settings.Once again, how many PFS scenarios have you played that contemplate an encounter occuring at 100+ feet because someone was using Stealth?
Some scenarios are obviously implausible to do anything like this within the PFS ruleset - anything exclusively in small dungeon rooms with no maps outside - but off the top of my head, PFS 07-24: Dead Man's Debt and PFS 09-14: Down The Verdant Path were two that were done with significant advantage across multiple encounters by stealthy parties in some of my runs of them. For PFS2 (which I'll freely admit to less experience in, but I don't think it's super relevant for discussing the distances of encounters, a factor that doesn't really vary from PF1 to PF2), I can recall stealth granting an advantage in dictating the field of combat in Mosquito Witch and Escaping the Grave, and pretty sure I can remember it helping an individual ranged PC in Lodge of the Living God.
Once again, that has nothing to do with play style and everything to do with the encounter map and scenario writing. But if you want to spin that as someone playing their ranger with more skill than me, knock yourself out.
You claim to play and GM PFS scenarios, so I am very curious which scenarios you've GM'd that have those types of circumstances.
I'm not saying anything about who is getting more out of the ranger as a comment on skill levels of the players, just of table culture in a region and player expectations about what is possible. I think it's quite silly to suggest that someone getting ~3-4 extra actions won't get a benefit out of it - but that's not necessarily saying that they're playing it in a more skilled way. Some GMs are happy to extend a forest map a little bit past where it'd normally end, some aren't; that's not in the player's control.
By the way, it's pretty easy to verify someone's claim that they've GM'd PFS - you can easily see 4 stars if you click on my profile. Never got around to running enough specials for that 5th star!
You act like making a stealth check to move up to a door is some kind of time consuming activity. It amounts to littte more than, "I stealth up to the door. I check the door for traps and listen at the door." Takes not much time at all.I don't count that as scouting. But if that's what you you mean, then yes, that happens all the time. That has minimal benefit, IME. Maybe once in five attempts you might hear something, you designate Prey and then 1 out of those 5 times, you actually get to target that creature before it dies or something else stops you from attacking it. But most GMs aren't letting me make RK checks on something I can't see, of if they do, it's at penalty.
When I play Ranger's, I'm always trying to find tracks and designate Prey. The statistical benefit is minimal at best. I do it more for the roleplay aspect.
I'm not sure how that makes the Ranger better than any other class that has Stealth and a comparable modifier.
They are on par with the rogue and probably investigator though I've never played an investigator.
Rangers get Legendary Perception like the rogue and are often a dex-based class. Most classes top out at expert or master Perception at best. You also eventually get to move through difficult terrain with no reduction in movement which is also good for scouting.
We use scouting to set up the party in an advantageous way. It provides a substantial advantage in our groups that allows us to control how we set up for battle.
We find it useful. The ranger is good at it.
Not sure how you look at party construction, but we have a scout/point man/hazard finder role and we like the rogue or ranger in that role along with damage dealer. Rogue and ranger are interchangeable. Some players like the rogue, some like the ranger. We also like ranged damage dealer as role which we feel the Precision ranger is best at.
So a Dex-based precision ranger feels ranged damage dealer and scout/point man/hazard finder role better than a rogue which tends to be another melee damage dealer with the hazard finder role. Melee damage dealer tend to be subject to more damage and effects than ranged damager dealers, so put more pressure on spell healing and mitigation. So there are advantages to each as the rogue generally does more damage than the ranger on a consistent basis in melee as their attack routine in melee is well-supported.
Then you're not getting the most of out of you Ranger. More than half the combat feats only work on Prey. So if you're wasting actions on attacking things that aren't your Prey, chances are that is suboptimal. There are some edge cases where that isn't true, but nominally it is. But if you want to assist that attacking non-Prey comes at no lack in effectiveness, be my guest.
First, I've never had trouble with the Hunt Prey Mechanic. I don't focus fire with a ranger and tend to target another creature than the party is fighting because I feel like that is a more efficient use of Hunt Prey.
Precision which is the one I play the most requires I hit the Hunt Prey target the first time. After that I can switch targets without issue with regular attacks. This only occurs occasionally.
The biggest problem I've seen for the ranger is the volley problem. You want to use a longbow to maximize damage. I think they should have given the ranger point blank stance. Fortunately it's fairly easy to get, but I still feel it should have been a ranger feat or something similar.
And with flurry ranger with two weapons, I started attacking separate targets because there was too much damage blow through with flurry. Flurry rangers hit really hard in a round. It's kind of a waste of actions to attack a non-boss same target as the rest of the party. You're going to have wasted attacks.
Once I started doing this, the flurry ranger did good damage.
Right, using the Ranger's classes abilities not using any and all feats and abilities from any class. But again, you're free to write a guide any way you choose....and label it whatever you want. The OP asks for feedback and I would not talk about talking Fighter feats in my Ranger guide. No more than I would talk about taking Ranger feats in my Barbarian guide. Those types of things, IMO, are more appropriate for generic/specific build guides.
I'm giving my opinion on how to build an effective ranger. They don't play weak in our games and are a fairly popular class. They seem versatile with several good builds even if you don't go outside of the class feats. A precision or flurry ranger with an animal companion is quite dangerous and useful in the group dynamic in my experience.
The ranger isn't as limited as the barbarian or fighter. It's more in line with the monk and rogue where it has good combat abilities mixed with other useful and versatile abilities that are useful in group play.