A decent enough guide to Rangers

[roquepo]

N N 959 wrote:

On one occasion I played with two Ranger and both saw their companions die. Not much benefit from a companion that can't survive melee combat.

If 2 companions died in combat, not fall unconscius, but truly dead, either the GM was going for the kill when they were unconscious instead of having the creatures trying to defend themselves from the rest of the group, potentially to permanently weak them for the future (which usually is a result of a GM vs PC mindset that I don't think has a place in a collaborative game like a ttrpg), or some PC would have died instead in that fight were not for them. The only way I see AC dying a "useless death" is by being collaterally hit by AoE while the fight progresses.

About the Flurry thing, the bad edge for Animal Companions is bad with Animal Companions. Wow.

Yes, you can't heal them in combat by level 1 without having Battle Medicine or a healing spell. Like hmm, a PC?

N N 959 wrote:

Not exactly. I would recommend you talk about Ranged, Melee, Support and talk about how each feat contributes to those in your experience.

I approached ratings in the same way I did with my Bard guide and that was probably a mistake, in that I agree. Bards evaluates all feats equally regardless of class path due to Multifarious Muse being a thing. Rangers Edges and weapon choice change a lot how you evaluate feats. While I have it clear in my head, I should probably make an effort to make the differences more clear there. Will probably update the guide when I have the time.

N N 959 wrote:

The switch hitting topic is a bit of a sticky wicket.

Your main problem with rangers switch hitting seems to be Hunt Prey. Do you really think that a Precision Ranger going Hunt Prey -> Quick Draw -> Strike/Step/Stride had a bad turn? What about a Flurry Ranger that started at range going Hunt Prey -> Quick Draw -> Twin Takedown (with a Gauntlet)? Is that a bad turn either?

N N 959 wrote:

I've been playing PFS for over 10 years. There is almost zero party scouting.

I never had the chance to play a PFS game. I usually play with several groups of friends that are into the hobby as well. I understand that not everyone will have the same type of GMs and the same type of games I do, that's why I constantly put disclaimers that lots of things are GM dependent and that you should talk with your GM a lot in my guides. You need to understand that the reverse is also true. Not everyone plays PFS games where people don't know each other and where you can't aleays rely on things that depend on how the GM and the other players want to do things.

N N 959 wrote:

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.

Everyone has access to Fighter dedication if they meet the stat requirements. Everyone has access to Archer dedication. Of course it should be in a class guide if it is useful. Fighters make more use of Gravity Weapon than Rangers de and Rangers make more use of Point Blank Shot than Fighters. It is not a big deal.

[Grankless]

959, just because most of your posting history seems to be abotu thinking rangers are a bad class does not mean you need to come tell guide writers that their guides are wrong for not being suitably negative. Relax.

[N N 959]

roquepo wrote:

either the GM was going for the kill when they were unconscious instead of having the creatures trying to defend themselves from the rest of the group, potentially to permanently weak them for the future (which usually is a result of a GM vs PC mindset that I don't think has a place in a collaborative game like a ttrpg), or some PC would have died instead in that fight were not for them. The only way I see AC dying a "useless death" is by being collaterally hit by AoE while the fight progresses.

The companions tried to enter combat with a boss and where one-shotted. AC's are crit-magnets. The GM wasn't going for the "Kill"

As far as a AC taking a death for a teammate. That's a lot of feat investment that gets wiped out in one encounter/one or two hits. It's one of the downsides of having a companion. If it gets killed, you're handicapped.

Quote:

About the Flurry thing, the bad edge for Animal Companions is bad with Animal Companions. Wow.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You claim that the benefit is "insane" I'm pointing out that he AC's benefit varies dramatically, and it is highly susceptible to getting killed by bosses. Again, if you insist that it still amounts to an "insane" benefit, that's your choice. But, IMO/E, you're overselling them.

Quote:

Yes, you can't heal them in combat by level 1 without having Battle Medicine or a healing spell. Like hmm, a PC?

But I'm not taking Player Companion as a feat. I have an animal and I have no way to heal it if it gets injured in combat...without investing more feats. And the Heal spell only works on my companion. This goes back to benefits on paper are different than what happens on a normative basis.

Quote:

Your main problem with rangers switch hitting seems to be Hunt Prey.

Irrespective of switch hitting, I do think Hunt Prey is a really bad mechanic for Rangers, the way it has been implemented. Make it a Free action at lvl 1, let it apply to all creatures of the same type that you initially put Hunt Prey on. Then things start looking a lot better.

As far as switch hitting, I don't see value in tryin to rank who is better because there are are no metrics/definitions as to what is required to call oneself a switch hitter or be deemed effective at it. If I were going to talk about "switch hitting" in a guide, I would first provide a framework and threshold concepts. Because anyone can switch from Ranged to Melee. Your guide doesn't explain why the Ranger is better at it than anyone else, other than just saying it's so and pointing to Quickdraw (which can potentially get you AoO'd by a boss).

Quote:

Do you really think that a Precision Ranger going Hunt Prey -> Quick Draw -> Strike/Step/Stride had a bad turn?

There's no reason to Quickdraw if you're not in melee. You'd just draw a weapon normally. Even for Precision, that is suboptimal. If the simulations on Precision vs Flurry vs Fighter are to be believed, Precision benefits tremendously from two attacks. Even at -5, it adds a significant boost to the Ranger's expected damage. So Quickdraw only gets you one weapon and you'll have to Quickdraw at the start of the next round to use Twin Takedown. Quickdraw in round 2 gets you one attack at +0 and TT then gets you an attack at -5 and -10. Doesn't seem like a good tactic.

For me, there's something off about how that plays out. If Paizo wants Rangers to switch hit, then there's got to be a better synergy with TT and Hunted Shot. Quickdraw should allow you to draw two weapons, but then it would be nearly mandatory for normal TWF, but something more is needed. IMO, the Ranger's feat design fights itself in a lot of spots. Paizo's trying to do too many things with the class and it doesn't mesh well. Everything feels like it was rushed and no one went back and really worked through the class design.

Is that a bad round? I don't know, what's the threshold for "bad round." Is it a bad round to just stay at range and fire? I think the question we should ask is if I want to switch hit, what makes the Ranger better or worse than other classes? Sure, you can talk about it qualitatively, but it has to be about more than a Ranger has Quickdraw. Fighters and other classes also have action saving feats (Sudden Charge) and they don't have to Hunt Prey.

Quote:

What about a Flurry Ranger that started at range going Hunt Prey -> Quick Draw -> Twin Takedown (with a Gauntlet)? Is that a bad turn either?

Well, I just have had to read through numerous posts by DF that Flurry work for every weapon and type. So by going Gauntlet, you're trying to sidestep the fact that QD only draws one weapon and to leverage Flurry in melee, you really need TT. IME, a Flurry Ranger has all kinds of issues. The main one being that Twin Takedown should automatically let you draw two weapons with one Interact. QD doesn't really fix that problem. I'd rather just stay out of melee and draw two weapons in safety, move in, and then TT at my best MAP. QD requires a Strike, so you're burning through MAP before you get to use TT.

Quote:

I never had the chance to play a PFS game.

There's a misunderstanding on my part as to what people consider "scouting." Yes, people frequently try to move up quietly to a door and listen. IME, that doesn't perceptibly tilt the battlefield in the Ranger's favor any more than it does for anyone else.

Quote:

Everyone has access to Fighter dedication if they meet the stat requirements. Everyone has access to Archer dedication. Of course it should be in a class guide if it is useful. Fighters make more use of Gravity Weapon than Rangers de and Rangers make more use of Point Blank Shot than Fighters. It is not a big deal.

If you want to bring up other class option in a Ranger class guide, then you're blurring the lines as to what the guide is about. Why not talk about Druid Dedications, or Rogue Dedications? What is the scope of your guide. It helps to define that and then stick to it.

[Malk_Content]

Ignoring what archetypes can do to enhance a class is ignoring a massive strength of the whole system and is like complaining about someone suggesting a dip on a class in PF1. I know you hate diluting the class but also hate not having everything the old ranger had in pf1, but it really feels like the former is just a way to keep being angry about the latter. It's been a couple of years now, don't need to try and make everyone else feel bad about liking the ranger.