I don't know about "early" class feature, but I feel like sometime around level 5 or 7 there should have been either a class feature or a feat that would help out in this regard.
Maybe something like recalling knowledge (if Outwit) let's you change your prey, and making a successful attack for precision or flurry let's you also change your prey.
That extra action to have things work really sucks.
Or maybe as you level up getting multiple prey at the same time, with one use of hunt prey so that it was more a per encounter action cost instead of per enemy. Maybe something like every 5 levels you can include an additional creature as prey. So at level 20 you end up able to hunt prey against 5 targets at once.
Honestly even if that was a feat instead of class feature I think it would be super popular.
It's called Double Prey :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's called Double Prey :)
Okay, fair point but Double Prey is pretty lame because it isn't available till level 12 and only get's you two.
The problem is rangers need to switch prey mid combat really kills their action economy. Especially if you want to have an animal companion too.
I would really prefer to see it be lower level and scale to more simultaneous creatures.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amazingly, the Ranger gets no inherent bonus for tracking (only your Prey if it runs away...and how often does that happen?). Find some tracks in the wood? A Cleric with the same proficiency in Survival is going to be better at initial tracking. A Druid, Cleric, or even Rogue with equal Wisdom can make your Ranger's primary skills redundant.
The reality is that Ranger is good at Nature and Survival simply because you start with those skills Trained. Any class with the same Wisdom and Skill Increases can be just as good. Doesn't it seem odd that the Ranger who is suppose to "hunt prey" is no better at initially locating tracks than any other class? I mean really?
Ummm... No? You can use the Hunt Prey Action while tracking something giving you a +2 bonus over those other classes. And then when you catch up to it, you start with it hunted, meaning you don't have to spend an action to hunt prey. A GM that is only letting you hunt prey in combat is like a GM not letting an Investigator Pursue A Lead. Of course it's going to be less effective and feel off.
You designate a single creature as your prey and focus your attacks against that creature. You must be able to see or hear the prey, or you must be tracking the prey during exploration.
You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks when you Seek your prey and a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your prey. You also ignore the penalty for making ranged attacks within your second range increment against the prey you’re hunting.
You can have only one creature designated as your prey at a time. If you use Hunt Prey against a creature when you already have a creature designated, the prior creature loses the designation and the new prey gains the designation. Your designation lasts until your next daily preparations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But do I feel more like "Ranger"? No. Not at all.
Ranger was my favorite martial class in D&D 3rd edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition. I have been a forever GM in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, so I have not had a chance to play a ranger in PF2. But I don't think that the PF2 ranger would be a favorite.
What I had liked about playing a ranger was the extra skills. My ranger would train in Survival and Knowledge(Nature) and every evening he would find a safe campsite and set up camp for the party. The animal companion was nice, too, though my gnome ranger Abu gave up his animal companion to gain the Guide archetype when the PF1 Advanced Player's Guide was published.
A ranger designed around Hunt Prey does not interest me. Abu gave up Favored Enemy for the Guide archetype, too, and I did not mind that. Ironically, I play NPCs that are designed like rangers, such as Hobgoblin Archers. They lack Hunt Prey ability. NPCs are designed to be easy to play and tracking which NPC has which prey could slow down the GM.
I really don't understand the flavor of Hunt Prey. It does not make the ranger feel like a hunter or like a wilderness expert or like Aragorn of Lord of the Rings, the inspiration for the ranger class. A bard's Inspire Courage composition and a barbarian's rage and a monk's stances are action taxes, too, but they reinforce the flavor of their class.
I often invent custom feats or modify existing feats for my players. Usually that is to enable their zany builds that the developers of PF2 could not anticipate. But for the ranger, the custom feats are to correct flaws in the class, such as having to pay the action tax of Hunt Prey too often, or having to take two Interact actions to draw two weapons for Twin Takedown. My houseruled Twin Takedown lets the ranger draw two weapons, one in each hand, with one Interact action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm... No?Ummm. Yes. You don't get a +2 bonus to track something unless it's already your prey.
You can find some tracks, and choose that creature as your prey.
You don't have to be successful on your check first.You can lose the trail, but your prey doesn't stop being your prey.
You can find some tracks, and choose that creature as your prey.
You don't have to be successful on your check first.
You can lose the trail, but your prey doesn't stop being your prey.To "find some tracks" a Ranger has to roll a Survival check and they do not get any bonus on finding those tracks. After you've found the tracks, you generally don't need to make another tracking check.
You have to successfully find tracks to designate the owner of them as your Prey.
Totally disagree.
You are mixing the concept of tracking and a trail.
A set of tracks is any indication that a creature was in a location.
A trail is what you find when you succeed in a tracking roll. Now you know the direction of travel of the creature and can follow it.
But tracking is a check that takes time. Exploration Time. Even before you roll to succeed or fail, tracking has a target. That target is valid to be your prey.
|
I actually was allowed to use Hunt Prey a lot. I was doing pathfinder scenario season 1 episode 2 The Mosquito Witch. At several points the group was tasked with finding some people and I was allowed to use my Survival and Hunt Prey to find them. I did think it was funny to use Hunt Prey to find friendlies.
At one point in a cave I was taken out of the fight because I was the only party member with no Darkvision and we were a party of full martials. Inventor, Champion, Monk and me a Ranger. I had taken out a torch and handed it to the monk because my bow uses two hands, but the Monk tossed it on the ground in a poor spot that didn’t illuminate anything, so I did 0 damage the entire encounter. What I realize now in hindsight was using my off hand to hold the torch and simply going in for melee with my one handed short sword, but none of my feats (hunted shot/animal companion) support melee per se so I wasn’t thinking. I think flexibility with no feat support would have served me better than running around in the dark hearing all the fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I start tracking?You attempt your Survival check when you start TrackingIf you can find a rule or errata that says I'm "tracking" before I make a Survival roll, lay it on me.
That is exploration mode and it is talking about hours.
You are mixing up rules for exploration and encounter mode and insisting on tight timing. It is just the wrong approach.
Your problem is one you have made for yourself by trying to apply a strict turn sequence to something that has not got one. Hunt Prey is clearly called out as applying its bonus to tracking. The RAI is crystal clear. What you are proposing is in clear violation of that. It is very much too bad to be true.
Don't do it!
Do me a favor and convince all of the PFS GMs it works that way.
I wish I could. As I have said before I have never played PFS.
From what I can tell on the forums they have made a few mistakes. If this is their ruling then they should be asking Paizo for errata.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand the flavor of Hunt Prey.I don't either, and I tried to dissuade Paizo from using that as the pivot. I told them they should have made Tracking a bigger deal and expanded on the uses of Survival and the information that one could gain from it. The Ranger should have been a tracker and a guide and that should have been turned into something that was useful in nominal encounters.
Talk of the playtest made me wonder whether my group had playtested a ranger during the PF2 playtest. I didn't remember one. However, I checked my chronicles and we had a ranger during the 4th-level playtest scenario, In Pale Mountain's Shadow. I didn't say much about the ranger beyond, "The ranger shot arrows at the elemental," and my conclusion, "The ranger is dull." Yes, the ranger was so dull that I had forgotten him. The player of the ranger filled out the survey on the playtest ranger, so I don't have records on his report.
Regardless of the technical details, I think we agree with SuperBidi that ranger class is Tier C, functional but other classes can perform their role better. N N 959 and I are pointing out that some of that weakness is because the ranger's role was not defined in a consistent and flavorful way.
The ranger in my Ironfang Invasion party had a great roleplaying opportunity. He was training under retired Chernasardo Ranger Aubrin the Green to become a Chernasardo Ranger himself, the heroic protectors of Nirmathas. For roleplaying, that worked out. Most of the party identifies themselves as Chernasardo Rangers, though now that they are high level and only one is an actual ranger, they instead call themselves the Chernasardo Elite. Ironfang Invasion and the article by Michelle Jones on Chernasardo Rangers in Fangs of war were written before Pathfinder 2nd Edition. The article said, "The Chernasardo Rangers act as border patrols, escorts, scouts, and smugglers, and also as a makeshift organized militia to assist in the nation’s war with Molthune." Paizo wrote their own story about heroic rangers and did not apply it to PF2 rangers.
On the issue of whether the ranger receives the +2 bonus to Track their prey, I myself figure that the bonus applies not the the first Survival check to Track but to later Survival checks later to continue tracking the prey over several miles.
The ranger in my Ironfang Invasion party looks for ways to Hunt Prey before encounter mode. If the party is approaching a building with enemies inside, the ranger will look for tracks to start tracking a prey. It strikes me as odd that he can look at the tracks of four identical enemies and select one particular enemy as his prey. But, as I said above, I don't understand the flavor of Hunt Prey. The ranger might scout out enemies in a fortress invisibly via his Cloak of Elvenkind and designate an important-looking figure as her prey, even though the party won't raid the fortress until five minutes later. He is a Whisper Elf with good hearing, so he will listen at doors to select a prey. Encounter mode does not begin until the door is opened.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger has plenty going for it. It just doesn't have enough feats to support every aspect of what we consider the ranger identity. All the individual components are there:
Combat style feats
Tracking feats
Stealth feats
Snare feats
Monster Knowledge feats
Warden spell feats
Favored Terrain feats
Favored Enemy feats
Pet feats
Wild Empathy feats
Unfortunately you don't get enough class feats to accommodate all of those. I think Paizo missed an opportunity in making skill feats which were class tagged. If you let the ranger choose the tracking, stealth, knowledge, or snare feats with their skil feats (and maybe loosed some prerequisites) the class would feel much less cramped. They wound up making archetype specific skill feats eventually, so why not class specific skill feats?
Otherwise, the ranger needs twice as many class feats to feel complete.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Skill monkeys should have class skill feats. Many Investigator feats are not really related to combat (things like Red Herring and such) and would be ideal skill feats. Rogues could have some Acrobatics/Stealth/Thievery skill feats (that are not as powerful as their related class feats). And there are here and there some class feats that could be skill feats, like Alchemical Savant, Reverse Engineer, etc... Maybe with a slight reduction in power for some of them.
I'll take another shot at it. Not sure I'll put it in A,B,C, but rather top tier versus bottom tier.
Top Tier:
Fighter: Great accuracy. Good saves and abilities. Simple feats and feat flexibility to take archetypes or caster boost ups. Fighter is very flexible with a great chassis with the best weapon attack roll in the game.
Druid: Best all around damage dealer. Easiest high value stat build options. You can focus all your stat boosts on Str, Dex, Con, and Wisdom all the way to level 20. Primal list makes for versatile damage dealing and healing. You have great build options with strong orders and easy access to other orders. You can wear medium armor and use a shield effectively at level 1.
Early on you can do casting and melee damage with a weapon or get a pet to use for damage in combination with your spells. At later levels you can retrain to wild order for while shape which with skill ups can make you an effective melee combatant with additional abilities like strong mobility options in three dimensions and additional variable attacks like dragon form with breath weapon you can choose according to enemy.
Cleric: Great healer. Good access to armor. Can easily use a shield. Decent saves. You do have to use some stat boosts on charisma, so not quite as focused as the druid on high value stats. Divine Font gives you flexibility with spells since your heals are covered. Domains vary in power and aren't as good as orders for the most part.
Bard:Best support caster in the game. Occult list has a good combination of healing, buffing, debuffing, and even some attack spells like magic missile or phantasmal calamity. Good access to illusions as well with invisibility. Like the druid you have a base muse and easy access to other muses that are quality. Your support cantrips are very powerful and don't require saves or skill checks to use unless you're boosting them.
Champion: Best tanking reaction in the game to take aggro. It is a little to easy for other classes to take as the base level reaction gives the majority of the benefit. But the Champion gets the best armor proficiency in the long run and works well with a shield. You are probably the best user of shields in the game. You can make a strong tank, though you are weak at range.
Monk: Most versatile martial builds in the game. Excellent action economy and ability to vary attacks between skill and attacks. You can use a shield for the base AC bonus. You get the highest unarmed AC proficiency in the game, so can get a very high AC. You have the best martial mobility in the game which when combined with flight and other forms of movement including leaping make you incredibly mobile. Since you can trip and attack with a single action, you can often move in and out of battle better than any other class.
Very easy to dip into rogue and pick up Mobility to make moving in and out of combat not so dangerous. You get excellent saves. You have a ton of quality feat options.
Monk is a bit of a weak damage dealer, but they are as good as a champion at tanking if built for it since a monk can grab Champion's Reaction with Archetype feats. They are the best controller martial in the game.
Excellent saving throws. Excellent high level feats. An all around much better class than I thought originally with a lot of interesting build options.
Middle Tier:
Sorcerer: You can make some interesting build options depending on bloodline. Spontaneous casting far superior to prepared casting in most situations. You have many great feat options depending on the bloodline.
You can grab spells from any list at certain points. You have the ability to have a spellbook and change out a spell on a daily basis which you can cast spontaneously.
Lots of good focus spell options. Can build almost any sorcerer with some healing if you so desire.
Dangerous Sorcery is a nice, low cost damage buff for damage spells.
Magus: Nice crit fishing ability. Best ranged martial damage dealer in the game if you go Starlight Span. Fun class fantasy. Middling defenses. You do one thing very well.
Rogue: Some will find this unpopular, but the rogue is a middling class to me. I've played three rogues to date; all thieves. I've GMed three Ruffians. Rogue is the best skill monkey in the game. Unfortunately skills are super easy to acquire. If you don't start off with 6 to 8 skills with any class, you're not trying very hard to get skills. Sneak attack is good, solid damage, but some creatures are immune and you usually have to wait for someone else to engage to do Sneak damage for most of your levels. You do have one of the best reaction attacks in the game if someone sets you up for it. The rogue can be a lot of fun.
Biggest problem I've seen with the rogue is if the enemy decides to rip you apart, it's pretty easy to do. You have a low Fort save and slow AC progression. So you are easy to hit and with 8 hit points, you don't take damage great. Depending on how you build, you might have to spread your stat skill ups.
If you want to be decent at Charisma skills, you have to raise it. If you're a Ruffian, you want a high strength while still wanting a good Dexterity to make sure reflex saves are good and Thievery and Stealth are effective. You also want a high wisdom for good perception since you get Legendary eventually and it helps with initiative. So you might not be able to pump Con as high as possible and with the low fort save, you can get really hammered by nasty Fort save stuff like poison or necromancy. You end up with lower hit points which gets you ripped apart quick.
Barbarian: Great damage dealer. Starts off weak defensively, but the hit points, high fort save, and some feats make for a strong character later. Instincts vary in quality quite a bit. Giant and Dragon deal a lot of damage. Animal is a little more defensive for a little less damage. Other instincts don't seem much worth it or a niche. Pretty good feat options.
Ranger: This is borderline low tier as the Hunt Prey action tax becomes costly at higher level when other classes are greatly improving their action economy or attack abilities. Ranger feats are pretty good. Ranger defenses are pretty solid with good Fort and Great reflex. You get Legendary Perception. Hunter's Edge are not bad. Precision can be decent though a little soft in the midlevels. Could have used another tier of expanded damage. Flurry is decent if you are in position to use which can be problematic. Has some variable build options. You can build a pretty effective Rogue-type ranger with archetype feats since you can grab rogue skill ups with feats and get the important Thievery abilities including an extra 1d6 precision damage.
You can focus on high value stats Str, Dex, Con, Wisdom.
Bottom Tier Classes
Wizard: Your best build is utility caster unless you want to focus on mega-disintegrate. You are locked in on your slots and have to spend feats to get some minimal, weak spontaneous casting.
For abilities like Counteract and casting the same effective spell over and over again, you are terrible.
If a sorcerer wanted to make a counteract mage, he could make a counteract spell like dispel magic his Signature Spell heightening it as needed, but not so as a wizard. You would have to prepare it in an appropriate level slot or your chances of counteracting become terrible. Once you expend the slot, you are done with that spell unless you prepare it across levels and fill your slot with heightened version of spells.
Universalist provides you with the best Spontaneous Casting option, but it's one extra cast per level per day. Though you can trick this out a little with a few feats.
You do get some extra casting with Scroll Savant, but it has to be 2 levels lower and can't be the same levels. So at the end of the day it will be an extra 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th at level 19.
You don't have very good focus spells and your best option is Universalist as it gives the best spontaneous options.
You don't cast better than any other class. You have weak weapon proficiencies not even getting simple weapons. Weak saves and AC progression like most casters. Your high level feat options are not great with the best one Effortless Concentration available to a lot of different casters with better build options.
Witch: About the same as the wizard with even worse feats, but better versatility since you can pick your spell list and fit the healer role which can make for a more interesting healer that can buff and blast a bit. Your focus spells are mostly weak. Your build options are not that great.
Witch has a lot of flavor, but very little power to make that flavor feel worth taking. Who cares if you get cool magic hair when it's so weak as to be ineffective in battle.
Usual weak hit points and defenses of a 6 hit point caster.
Swashbuckler: Biggest problem with the Swashbuckler is Panache generation. It makes your abilities unreliable in many of the most important fights or fights that are more complicated such as fighting in three dimensions. Even with the difficulty of panache generation, the payoff in damage is not worthwhile until very high level. You have to work extra hard just to keep up with almost every other martial class and remain clearly behind powerful damage dealing martials like the barbarian or fighter.
Alchemist: One ok build is bomber. No Master attack roll with bombs. Versatile, but relatively low damage. Does work against creatures that are magic immune. Defenses are middling. Some versatile elixirs to help the party. Not a power class, but bomber is borderline Middle tier. Other builds a player has wanted to try, but they look weak to him on paper so he hasn't bothered.
Some classes I'm not sure on yet:
Psychic: Has some interesting builds and abilities. I can see some potential. I'm watching two psychics in play right now. Varying quality in Minds. I'll see how they play out. Obviously have the same weak defenses as most casters.
Oracle: Has some interesting builds. One player likes playing them, but we haven't run them up to max yet. Curse can be a bit annoying to track as a GM. Some focus spells can be nasty like Dichotomy. Some innate focus spells can be weak. Feats are not the best. We'll see what it looks like at highest level.
Summoner: Do not like the single hit point pool. It makes healing easier, but can be painful when attacked at two points. Eidolon has good defenses, summoner does not. Very easy to attack summoner and avoid Eidolon as there is nothing that allows the Eidolon to hold aggro. Very limited spellcasting. Action economy is interesting allowing you to use a summoned creature with the eidolon. If Summoning were better, summoner would probably be better.
Maximum master casting discourages focusing on casting for the highest levels.
Damage is fairly weak, though can be versatile.
I'm running one up right now, but still not sure where it falls on the tier list. Probably somewhere Middle to Bottom Tier.
Classes I have no experience with: Thaumaturge, Inventor, Investigator (seems weak, but I haven't seen it in play), Gunslinger (we don't like guns in our game),
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not understanding the ranger hate all that much bc I was originally a abused martial player from 5e. PF2E's ranger and monk were the whole reason I switched when the system dropped. Even after all the new goodies they remain my two favorite classes to play
Is there a build that actually does what the Ranger class should do?
Can you build a fighter with general feats and archetypes that will get you the forest savey and effective fighter that is desired?
Not understanding the ranger hate all that much bc I was originally a abused martial player from 5e. PF2E's ranger and monk were the whole reason I switched when the system dropped. Even after all the new goodies they remain my two favorite classes to play
No one hates the ranger. The class fits the class fantasy and isn't bad, but it is one of the few classes that becomes worse as you level. That just feels strange.
In the early levels, precision ranger feels great. You're that archer doing that extra d8 on top of weapon damage which is pretty huge at low levels. You get a pet that feels strong at low level and adds to the damage with precision.
At later levels precision doesn't scale very well working once while the rogue and barbarian damage are scaling with every attack. The pet doesn't scale very well against the stuff you're fighting and the auras and AoE damage rips it apart. If you don't take a flier, the pet is mostly useless in flying battles. Hunt Prey becomes this action tax that you have to put on the enemy to take advantage of your poorly scaling Hunter's Edge and Pet.
Ranger is a class that comes out strong out of the gate, then starts to feel weaker as you head past level 10 or so when other classes are starting to get their powerful abilities and scale up at a better rate than the ranger.
The only thing keeping the precision Ranger damage competitive through their weird scaling are Warden's Boon and Shared Prey, and only if you consider it for ranged combat.
Sadly, one of them is another action on your action starved character.
If we are making a typical fighting-game-like division of S, A, B, C and D tiers, I believe bow Ranger with AC goes between the bottom of A tier and the top of B tier. Quite solid, but not even close to the top.
I also think that trying to rate classes as a whole instead of general builds you can do with those classes is completely pointless. The difference between the best and the worst Rogue general concept you can build and play is massive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say Age of Ashes.
So 5 in Ages of Ashes.
Shield Champion of Redemption of Desna. Playing strike, raise shield, move, use reaction, mostly but would take Sleepwalker for grappling / tripping important foes.
Draconic Barbarian with Swipe, AoO, rage breath and a Glaive
Thief Rogue melee specialist with an Elven Branched spear or a Dancing Spear
Storm and Wave Druid for simple blasts, enlarge/slow/haste/longstrider/walls, one heal.
StarLight Span Pyschic Magus with Imaginary Weapon and Amped Guidance.
So 3 Strikers (Barbarian, Rogue, Magus) but all 5 characters have solid attacks.
3 sources of some healing (Champion, Rogue with Battle Medicine, Druid) including a heal and maybe even a staff of healing in a back pack if it is required.
The Champion is needed as the Barbarian and Rogue can be a bit soft defensively in melee. They want to be close so as to get flanking bonuses. They just work as a unit.
3 characters with good ranged atacks (Magus, Druid, Rogue)
Magic for when it is important.
Druid and Barbarian are good for crowd control.
At least two characters, not the Magus, would invest in Intimidation. The Druid would get into Aid at mid level.
I've avoided Fighter and Bard, because I find the play style too bland more than anything. With 5 PCs a Bards cantrips would be strong I just prefer a Druid.
Avoiding Ranger as Hunt Prey is just an action sink that gets worse in a larger more offensive party like this.
Avoiding animal companions (except as mounts) and familiars as they just waste time in a larger party.
Ages of Ashes doesn't have a lot of things Immune to precision damage the way Abomination Vaults does, so the Rogue is reliable.
Let's say Age of Ashes.So 5 in Ages of Ashes.
Shield Champion of Redemption of Desna. Playing strike, raise shield, move, use reaction, mostly but would take Sleepwalker for grappling / tripping important foes.
Draconic Barbarian with Swipe, AoO, rage breath and a Glaive
Thief Rogue melee specialist with an Elven Branched spear or a Dancing Spear
Storm and Wave Druid for simple blasts, enlarge/slow/haste/longstrider/walls, one heal.
StarLight Span Pyschic Magus with Imaginary Weapon and Amped Guidance.So 3 Strikers (Barbarian, Rogue, Magus) but all 5 characters have solid attacks.
3 sources of some healing (Champion, Rogue with Battle Medicine, Druid) including a heal and maybe even a staff of healing in a back pack if it is required.
The Champion is needed as the Barbarian and Rogue can be a bit soft defensively in melee. They want to be close so as to get flanking bonuses. They just work as a unit.
3 characters with good ranged atacks (Magus, Druid, Rogue)
Magic for when it is important.
Druid and Barbarian are good for crowd control.
At least two characters, not the Magus, would invest in Intimidation. The Druid would get into Aid at mid level.I've avoided Fighter and Bard, because I find the play style too bland more than anything. With 5 PCs a Bards cantrips would be strong I just prefer a Druid.
Avoiding Ranger as Hunt Prey is just an action sink that gets worse in a larger more offensive party like this.
Avoiding animal companions (except as mounts) and familiars as they just waste time in a larger party.Ages of Ashes doesn't have a lot of things Immune to precision damage the way Abomination Vaults does, so the Rogue is reliable.
Interesting, I am a Cleric, does he suck? Is he close to making the cut for the 5 person team or is he nowhere near?
Interesting, I am a Cleric, does he suck? Is he close to making the cut for the 5 person team or is he nowhere near?
What makes you think there is an optimal team? This is just a team I like with a certain amount of synergy and balance. Where I'd be happy to play any of the characters as they are all interesting.
A Cleric can be fine. Depends how they are built and what spells you take. Age of Ashes is not full of undead to the extent that I'd really be looking to take a Cleric. IMO too many build a Cleric a bit passively and don't look for their more offensive powers. This party doesn't need or want a Cleric.
Interesting, I am a Cleric, does he suck? Is he close to making the cut for the 5 person team or is he nowhere near?What makes you think there is an optimal team? This is just a team I like with a certain amount of synergy and balance. Where I'd be happy to play any of the characters as they are all interesting.
A Cleric can be fine. Depends how they are built and what spells you take. Age of Ashes is not full of undead to the extent that I'd really be looking to take a Cleric. IMO too many build a Cleric a bit passively and don't look for their more offensive powers. This party doesn't need or want a Cleric.
Interesting, I have read your guides and built my own version of a Cleric. He has the healing Font and Wyrmkin domain, he is a follower of Nalinivati. Very much offensively focused with that deity/domain.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, I have read your guides and built my own version of a Cleric. He has the healing Font and Wyrmkin domain, he is a follower of Nalinivati. Very much offensively focused with that deity/domain.
Interesting, I am a Cleric, does he suck? Is he close to making the cut for the 5 person team or is he nowhere near?What makes you think there is an optimal team? This is just a team I like with a certain amount of synergy and balance. Where I'd be happy to play any of the characters as they are all interesting.
A Cleric can be fine. Depends how they are built and what spells you take. Age of Ashes is not full of undead to the extent that I'd really be looking to take a Cleric. IMO too many build a Cleric a bit passively and don't look for their more offensive powers. This party doesn't need or want a Cleric.
Its an effective build. Nice added spells, reasonably good domain spell. You'd be replacing the Druid in the party I outlined.
Please never take away the impression that there is one true way to build things. All these characters have multiple ways to win. I've merely been expressing the the traditional cleric is played far too defensively and passively. Yours seems fine, I expect often you will get to the end of the day with Healing spells left over.
My impressions on the PF2e classes. YMMV and all that.
Can be very effective; possibly more effective than other classes in many situations
Bard- full casting, composition cantrips are useful in most situations, good focus spells and class feats, probably the best party buffer
Champion- strong martial, Champion's Reaction is usually strong, the best armor proficiency (even though tanking in PF2 is more difficult), good class feats
Fighter- the best weapon-using martial, generally strong class feats
Monk- the best unarmed/unarmored martial (can also be strong with monk weapons), strong class feats, good focus spells
Psychic- probably the strongest full caster, psi cantrips and spell amps reduce the need to use spell slots, generally good class feats
Can be effective to very effective
Barbarian- strong damage-dealer, good class feats
Cleric- full casting, divine font is useful but requires investing in Cha as well as Wis
Druid- full casting, extremely versatile, good class feats; possibly borderline Tier I
Inventor- good martial, good versatility, generally good class feats, innovations can provide some unique options
Magus- good martial, can mix casting with strikes for strong burst damage
Oracle- full casting, generally good (although the selection is limited) class feats
Rogue- good martial, the most skill increases and skill feats (which can usually be used at will), good class feats
Sorcerer- full casting, can choose spell list based on bloodline, does not gain Resolve (for Master Will saves) like a wizard
Thaumaturge- good martial, good class feats, implements can provide good options
Wizard- full casting; gets the job done, but not spectacularly (can probably be considered the baseline full caster)
Somewhat below par, but can be effective with archetypes and/or some effort
Ranger- good martial, some good class feats, poor action economy with Hunt Prey, reliance on Hunt Prey for many class features/class feats
Summoner- can choose spell list based on eidolon type, generally good eidolon abilities and class feats, shared hit points, poor action economy without tandem feats
Witch- full casting, can choose spell list based on patron, poor hex cantrips*/focus spells, class feats are generally underwhelming
Requires specific "build" choices and/or campaign situations to be effective
Alchemist- other than daily/Quick Alchemy bombs and possibly healing with elixirs of life, there isn't much an alchemist can do better than another class
Gunslinger- good martial; this is mostly an issue with firearms more than the class, but being effective requires jumping through hoops to mitigate poor action economy or having the campaign be in Arcadia
Investigator- good martial, class features and class feats often require the GM to plan ahead to include situations or play along to be useful
Swashbuckler- good martial, class features and class feats often require extra effort/actions to set up or narrowly specific situations
*- if hex cantrips were like psi cantrips (even without the spell amp benefits) the witch would probably be less problematic
I'd rate ranger above monk
Thaumaturge way above inventor (and a tier above inventor)
Shield Champion of Redemption of Desna. Playing strike, raise shield, move, use reaction, mostly but would take Sleepwalker for grappling / tripping important foes.
Draconic Barbarian with Swipe, AoO, rage breath and a Glaive
Thief Rogue melee specialist with an Elven Branched spear or a Dancing Spear
Storm and Wave Druid for simple blasts, enlarge/slow/haste/longstrider/walls, one heal.
StarLight Span Pyschic Magus with Imaginary Weapon and Amped Guidance.
If you want my point of view, I see an issue with the Barbarian. You have 3 strikers (Rogue, Magus and Druid) so I don't see the point of the 4th. I feel that it comes from a mix of lack of melee toughness and need for a flanking partner for the Rogue. But it's not a character that is really bringing much to the party, it looks more like a patch for the few holes it has.
In my opinion, the Druid can easily bring an AC to help the frontline, giving more freedom for the 5th character.
Or you could take a hybrid, either a Summoner, an Alchemist, or an Inventor to fill the Barbarian role while bringing something else to the party. It's the only weakness of your party composition, in my opinion.
I'd rate ranger above monk
Thaumaturge way above inventor (and a tier above inventor)
Why ranger above the monk? What do you like on the ranger?
Monk action economy is easily the best for a martial in the game.
Better AC than the ranger. More flexible great saves. Flexible attack routines shifting between skill or attacks, while maintaining action economy booster. Incredible mobility including alternate forms of movement like flying, swimming, or leaping. Excellent feat choices nearly every level.
You get weaker damage on the monk for an immense amount of attack versatility and action economy.
If you want my point of view, I see an issue with the Barbarian. You have 3 strikers (Rogue, Magus and Druid) so I don't see the point of the 4th. I feel that it comes from a mix of lack of melee toughness and need for a flanking partner for the Rogue. But it's not a character that is really bringing much to the party, it looks more like a patch for the few holes it has.
See don't see the Druid as a Striker but as a utility. It depends on your spell mix.
I've never known a Barbarian not to dominate in melee. Maybe my Barbarians have just been lucky. No they don't potentially explode like a melee Rogue but they are pretty good.
You get weaker damage on the monk for an immense amount of attack versatility and action economy.
Not even weaker damage if you go for Heaven's Thunder. Not that hard to fit that extra action as a monk from time to time for 2 turns of big extra damage. Specially good for Bo Staff builds that want to not move away from monsters that much.
You get weaker damage on the monk for an immense amount of attack versatility and action economy.Not even weaker damage if you go for Heaven's Thunder. Not that hard to fit that extra action as a monk from time to time for 2 turns of big extra damage. Specially good for Bo Staff builds that want to not move away from monsters that much.
That's an AP feat. So they are exceptions, not the rule.
As nicholas storm said, it is now part of a Lost Omens book. Just deals 1 point of electric and 1 point of sonic damage per weapon damage die after the redesign. It is pretty good for monks now. Specially monks that want to go the monastic archer route.
I've been very positively surprised by this build. It's in my opinion the most versatile option in the game. You combine spellcasting, melee and ranged damage, toughness, skills and a few specific shenanigans. Most versatile builds lose here and there (in general in damage and/or toughness, or are feat-constrained) but the caster Summoner is really everywhere, always able to contribute meaningfully and very adaptable to the situation.But as Gortle says tier lists are extremely campaign dependent. So depending on players you'll see extremely different rankings.Dependant on particular builds too. You seem very keen on your Dex based Eidolon/Summoner - which I have not tried.
So, would this be something like a fey eidolon build? I've been interested in that recently.
And is it better to have a dex eidolon do a cantrip rather than Two melee attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As nicholas storm said, it is now part of a Lost Omens book. Just deals 1 point of electric and 1 point of sonic damage per weapon damage die after the redesign. It is pretty good for monks now. Specially monks that want to go the monastic archer route.
Isn't it funny a power that casts 1 action to add up to 8 damage until the end of your next turn suddenly is a sucky feat. It's still a great feat, but another example of something being too good, getting reduced, and suddenly being viewed as weak when it is still a comparatively great damage boost for a feat.
It is still nuts and now that it is balanced and part of official content it feels like a great boost to the class. Probably what made me happier among all the mechanical stuff in LO:IL.