
Phntm888 |
Lets say we consider only martials because the casters weren't going to be great weapon users of melee or ranged attacks. That gives us:
...
That means 2 of 14 classes can effectively use ranged weapons like bows with all the class features and feat lines within the class. You may not have noticed a systemic bias but it is there.
I keep coming back to this
some classes have class features that aren't particularly effective when it comes to ranged options
.
because it seems like we're saying the same thing. The big difference is that you're looking at the problem and seeing an intentional bias against ranged options on the part of the devs, and I see the devs as having a specific idea of what they think a specific class should be good at, and archery options for that class suffer as a result of indifference on the part of the devs.
I think we generally agree that there are a lot of classes that don't have ranged options that utilize all their class features, we just disagree on how big that problem is and what the cause of the problem is. I think that adding options to more classes to enable them to better utilize archery would be a good thing for the game, and I'd be okay if those options required a feat to utilize. Based on your statements here, you'd rather see significant revisions that allow those classes to utilize archery options natively, without any additional investment.
I don't think we have a whole lot more to say on this topic that we haven't already said. Maybe we just leave it here?
The one and only Hooded Champion Ranger Archetype. An archetype replacing Ranger's favored enemy (Hunt Prey in PF2) with Swashbuckler's Panache but applying it to archery.
Bringing this back in some form would be pretty cool. Could be a Ranger option that gives the Swashbuckler multiclass archetype dedication for free with the rest of the archetype feats as class feats, or they could move it to the Swashbuckler itself and create a proper ranged option for that class as either a new Style or perhaps as a class archetype that moves the precise strike/finisher options from finesse weapons to archery weapons.

Shriketalon |

In regards to the Alchemist, I'd like to see an emphasis on more gear support. Every bomber is relying on the same Alchemical Bomb martial weapon, and a lot of the flaws people list about the class are actually disadvantages in the weapon stat block itself. If a fighter encounters a situation where their weapon doesn't work, the solution is to pull out another weapon, but the alchemist doesn't have that option. Similarly, many of the other research fields have action economy issues which could definitely be solved with some gear.
A fix to the Alchemist could be creating new weaponry/armor items that are designed to boost the class over time. Each research field could provide access to some of this equipment for free as part of the kit. When you build your Alchemist, you select gear for different situations in the exact same way that a martial character would select their focus via weapon selection.
Here are some examples to show what I mean. Please note that they are not balanced in the slightest, and serve only as general ideas.
Alchemical Bomb: This is the existing stack block. You throw it, make an attack roll, and it splashes. All alchemists get proficiency for free.
Sling Bomb: This is literally just a bomb on a string. You whirl it like a bolo and let go, increasing the throw range.
Alchemical Mine: This uses the same rules as the Explosive Mine gadget. When someone steps into the square, it explodes, automatically rolling an attack and treating the enemy as flat-footed.
Cluster Bomb: This advanced bomb can roll attacks against multiple foes in a small area, but it requires more resources to construct.
Fuse Bomb: This bomb packs a bigger payload, but the thicker casing required can't shatter on impact. It goes off on your next turn, forcing a Reflex saving throw against the effect.
Alchemical Sphere: These fragile glass spheres rupture on the slightest impact with a surface. Trading damage for reliable debuffs, these bombs inflict splash damage and the bomb's debuff on everything in the area.
Alchemical Spewer: This two-handed contraption takes Canisters, an ammunition type with identical properties to bomb payloads. When you load a canister into the Spewer and fire, it produces a cone or line AoE effect with the same damage/debuff as the bomb recipe. (coverting a single-target damage + splash into an AoE would require some balance tweaking).
Alchemical Spitters: These one-handed versions of the Spewer are linked to a central pack by tubes. Instead of firing one large cone or line, the alchemist can point each spewer in a different direction to create two small AoE effects.
Alchemical Spider Bomb: This expensive option pairs a Clockwork Spider Bomb with an alchemical payload. It behaves just like the CSB stat block, but the explosion uses the stats of whatever bomb you selected. You must craft the Gadget separately for this item.
Alchemical Spider Mouse: This is a faster version of the alchemical spider bomb, which speeds out on little wheels in a line. It can't handle difficult terrain or collisions, and will tip over and explode if it encounters anything in its path.
Mortar: This cumbersome device allows the alchemist to lob bombs at extreme range, though it requires setup and has the volley trait.
Canister Launcher: This single-shot grenade launcher provides a long-range version of the Spewer, creating a burst AoE that forces a reflex saving throw.
Alchemical Arrow: By miniaturizing a bomb, the alchemist can create an arrow or crossbow bolt that applies the splash damage and the bomb's debuff effect on hit, but lacks the sheer damage potential of an explosion.
I know that was heavy on bombing, but other alchemists could also use some gear.
Syringe Gauntlet: This item has all the normal properties of a gauntlet, but also has a syringe located on the forearm which can hold a single elixir/mutagen. The wielder can take the Interact action to administer the elixir without pulling it from their pack.
Syringe Claws: A more intricate version of the gauntlet, this glove has syringes on all four fingers, allowing more frequent use before reloading.
Syringer Band: This disturbing-looking item houses a single syringe pointed directly at the wearer's skin. The wearer can take the Interact action to smack the band and cause it to discharge the contents into their body. The band can't be reloaded without taking it off, a time-consuming process.
Syringer Rifle: It's a gun that shoots alchemical syringes. The good news is that you can deliver an elixir or mutagen at a range. The bad news is that you have to hit your target, either consuming an ally's reaction to hold still for the shot or beating their AC.
Alchemical Mister: This gear uses similar stats to a Cryomister gadget, and disperses a weakened version of an elixir, mutagen, or toxin in a burst area effect.
Mutagenic Mask: This headgear contains an aerosol version of a mutagen. By Interacting with the object, the wearer can breath in the mutagen and trigger the effect.
Thank you for indulging my long, silly list. The point is that the alchemist would really shine if it can combine its massive pool of alchemical recipes with different delivery mechanisms. I know it would add complication to the class, and they certainly don't need to implement that whole list of items, but providing a few different vectors for the alchemist to do their thing would really help the class make an impact.

Ganigumo |
Two changes that are constantly at the forefront of my mind:
2) Oracles should get one Divine Access feat for free at 1st level. Divine Access should also at least be a level 2 feat.
With the clamor for Oracles getting more spells to better support each mystery, utilizing the already established Divine Access seems to make the most sense. I especially like how it showcases early on how integral and unique the Divine Access feat is to the class, even if some mysteries are more thirsty for it than others.
I'm not sure that Divine Access is a must take, I'm currently playing a cosmos oracle with pretty much no intention of taking it, although that might be the exception to the rule.
I'd like to see more different Champions. But to do it I'd have to get more into their philospohies and Golarion is pretty light weight most of the time. Also the outlook of the character needs to be protective because of the nature of the Champions mechanics. In my opinion there is certainly room for more LG, and LN options.
I don't disagree that we could get multiple types sharing an alignment, but all of the evil paladins are outright selfish, and not really protective at all.
Myself, I'd prefer for it to be an opt in for a drawback: I'm 1000% fine with fancy elixirs and mutagenists getting some kind of risk/reward feature for them or something else for the drawback. Having them always having a drawback may reinforce one kind of fantasy, but then cuts off another fantasy for those effects without crippling side effects.
letting them ignore the penalty base, or take it to increase the item bonuses by 1 would be cool. You could also let them ignore the penalty but be under the effects of 2 and take both penalties. You'd probably need to get rid of mutagenic flashback, but that's always felt like it should be a feat to me.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The problem with archers in every D&D-ish game has been:
1) Spellcasters are fragile and don't want to melee.
2) Against a group of melee enemies, half or more of the party needs to hold the line and protect fragile casters.
3) Half or more of players want to play casters.
An archer is a martial who takes up a caster party slot. He doesn't hold the line.
PF2e has actually made this problem better, in my opinion. More players want to play martials, and fewer monsters have AoOs, so spellcasters can slip away.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I have a bit of a problem with all the negative nancying on ranged characters. Lets see if I can counter some of the arguements.
1) Barbarian needs a single feat to make their entire build work? Okay? That's . . . . normal. Just get some boomerangs. They (Rules as written) return weather you hit or miss and have a range of sixty feet. There, solved. Or, if you want to go harder, get a thrower's bandoleer and buy 29 Charams. THey are d8 thrown and take on the properties of the throwing vest. I mean, yeah, might need to dip rogue/swashbuckler/duelist if you want to quick draw but other than that, you are good to go.
2) Paladins are more than just their reaction. Smite good, lay on hands, free weapon rune. Not to mention, 15' is often enough if you are doing a dungeon dive. That is 25 feet apart from the bad guy to your friend.
(Friend)<--10 feet>(You take up five feet)<--10 feet-->Enemy.
With ranged reprisal that should be enough in most dungeons. Is it the best build? No, but I think it is viable.
3) Fighters? I don't understand the hatred for fighter archers? Literally the only ones in the game who can ignore the volley trait from longbows AND the only ones who can get legendary proficiency in bows, and weapon specialization adds to damage . . . I don't understand the hatred. You think double/triple shot isn't good? Then . . . don't take it? You can still do well without? Or take it and only use it on smallfry? You don't HAVE to tripple shot every round.
4) Investigators make decent archers. They can study someone as an action and then effectivly sneak attack them without needing them to be flat footed. Pretty good 1/round decent damage hit. If they have high dex they can also fire off some normal shots. And if they know who they are after, then the study them thing is a free action instead of a single action. Honestly Investigators are pretty good switch hitters.
5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade to damage. That's such a terrible price to pay to be hitting people for 10d6+4+3d8+2+3 at level 20, and being far enough away that the death monster can't murder your. Oh, and you can do that most every round as you don't need to worry about moving around and repositioning, so every round can go "Recharge spellstrike, spellstrike" even without haste. Is this the most DPR per round? No, but it works.
I'll do more as I get more time.

![]() |
Red Griffyn wrote:That means 2 of 14 classes can effectively use ranged weapons like bows with all the class features and feat lines within the class. You may not have noticed a systemic bias but it is there.This is a bit misleading. Your criticisms of the thaumaturge and inventor aren't really issues with ranged weapons but more with specific pieces of gear or builds. A weapon inventor or construct inventor can use a bow just fine. A thaumaturge can use any 1h ranged weapon just fine... they can't use bows or rifles, but they can't use greatswords or halberds either.
Likewise saying that inventors or thaumaturges not being able to start with an 18 in their attacking stat is anti-ranged is disingenuous, because they can't start with an 18 if they're melee either. How is that a specifically anti-range thing?
Your complaint seems to more be that there's one specific weapon you like and you dislike that not every class can use it. Which is fair, but materially different than how you're representing it (and extends far beyond range weapons).
Its hardly misleading. I listed out the martial classes and gave you concrete examples of how core class chassis features simply don't work at range with ranged weapons unless they spend feat taxes or pick other sublcasses. Your only disposition to 12 of 14 classes is:
Thaumaturge can use 1h ranged weapons fine. Except that to do that they need to spend a L1 feat on ammunition thaumaturgy at the opportunity cost of picking up diverse lore or divine disharmony (FYI a great feat to get flatfooted at range for said range weapons). So they aren't just using it fine. Even with the feat tax it still doesn't allow 1H+ weapons which are weaker than throwing out 60ft range boomerangs off a thrower's bandolier!
Weapon and construct inventors can get offensive boost so its fine. Except only weapon inventors can. Armor inventors are limited to melee and construct inventors have it limited to their construct. 2 of 3 subclasses not getting it is clearly not proving me wrong here, especially when the armor inventor has a agile, dexterity focused, stealth option. You can't even try to hand waive it away as big honking heavy armor brutes wouldn't be ranged combatants anyways since they are literally offering an alternative play style with the dex heavy/stealth heavy armor!
Not starting with a 18 attack stat is compensated by these class features like implement empowerment and offensive boost. Its a clear trade off of less accuracy is traded for more baseline damage. Yet they don't get full access to those features with ranged weapons or are limited even after a feat tax. Ranged and melee options should be treated at parity because a -1 to hit is far worse for ranged combatants that primarily have deadly or fatal weapon traits that effectively become dead weight in the weapon budget since they are less likely to crit than every other martial.
Your straw-men of my arguments is silly. There is a clear systemic bias in the entire system that limits the functional usage of fundamental class features with ranged weapons. In some cases that is just 1H+ weapons, in some cases that is all ranged weapons that aren't thrown weapons, in other cases it is all ranged weapons. My personal preference for one weapon over another has nothing to do with the objective facts that I am identifying to you.
There is a community perception that ranged weapons that do 2/3 damage at best vs. melee are still too powerful and we should just nerf the composite shortbow. Its insane to me that the community has drunken this koolaid because literally every ranged user is burning up feats (sometimes at significant opportunity cost at the applicable feat level), losing class features despite investment, and still doing 2/3 damage (often not at maximal ranges but limited to within 15-30ft). The game designers and community keep beating the dead horse and claiming its alive and kicking!
This thread is about things you'd like to see fixed this year. Maybe my point needs a phase 1 and phase 2. Phase 1, the game designers and community finally accept the truth of my assertions about the system needlessly punishing ranged options based on the clear evidence provided. Phase 2, is meaningfully fixing the mechanics identified in above posts to be more inclusive and weapon agnostic.

Pronate11 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if 90% of players and designers are ok with how range is being handled and 10% aren't, why are you assuming that the problem is with the 90% and not the 10%? Like, people have played other games with more powerful ranged options, so its not like they are misinformed. So if most people are ok with how it is now, why should Paizo cater to the minority who thinks its a problem?

![]() |
I have a bit of a problem with all the negative nancying on ranged characters. Lets see if I can counter some of the arguements.
1) Barbarian needs a single feat to make their entire build work? Okay? That's . . . . normal. Just get some boomerangs. They (Rules as written) return weather you hit or miss and have a range of sixty feet. There, solved. Or, if you want to go harder, get a thrower's bandoleer and buy 29 Charams. THey are d8 thrown and take on the properties of the throwing vest. I mean, yeah, might need to dip rogue/swashbuckler/duelist if you want to quick draw but other than that, you are good to go.
2) Paladins are more than just their reaction. Smite good, lay on hands, free weapon rune. Not to mention, 15' is often enough if you are doing a dungeon dive. That is 25 feet apart from the bad guy to your friend.
(Friend)<--10 feet>(You take up five feet)<--10 feet-->Enemy.
With ranged reprisal that should be enough in most dungeons. Is it the best build? No, but I think it is viable.3) Fighters? I don't understand the hatred for fighter archers? Literally the only ones in the game who can ignore the volley trait from longbows AND the only ones who can get legendary proficiency in bows, and weapon specialization adds to damage . . . I don't understand the hatred. You think double/triple shot isn't good? Then . . . don't take it? You can still do well without? Or take it and only use it on smallfry? You don't HAVE to tripple shot every round.
4) Investigators make decent archers. They can study someone as an action and then effectivly sneak attack them without needing them to be flat footed. Pretty good 1/round decent damage hit. If they have high dex they can also fire off some normal shots. And if they know who they are after, then the study them thing is a free action instead of a single action. Honestly Investigators are pretty good switch hitters.
5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade...
The intent of this thread OP was to state things you'd like to see fixed. In response I stated:
10.) Needs to allow ranged characters to engage with basic class features like arcane cascade, rage, panache, armor inventor, etc. Range vs. Melee balance is way off and feels bad that you just don't get to participate in basic class features.
Your response isn't in any way addressing the issue that basic class features do not work in their entirety, or only work partially, or require a feat tax, or limit the effective range for said class feature to meaningfully decrease range to essentially only close range.
If a barbarian can spend a feat to throw boomerangs, why can't they shoot a bow or gun or crossbow? It makes no sense and these options are less DPR so they aren't unbalancing.
The comment on champions is missing the boat again. You have a key class feature that doesn't work with ranged options within the range afforded to those weapons by other balance cuts to weapon damage dice. Your comment about a champions being more isn't up for debate. Literally every class is 'more' than simply the damage they do with a weapon. Your just not engaging with the actual critique here.
Fighters have trap feat options for archery. As a fighter your best bet is to MC into ranger and take ranger feats as its the only martial that facilitates those ranged archery options. The whole point here is that even on a martial whose defining class attribute is +2 to hit, even in the feat chains provided the game designers have created trap feats, almost exclusively for the ranged feat line.
Investigators -> Literally said I don't know much about them and called them one of the 2 that are counter to the point. So now you're just talking about something no one is claiming is an issue.
Magus -> AGAIN the actual critique is that class features don't work with ranged. If arcane cascade doesn't work that is the start and stop of it. Arcane cascade isn't even a good class feature because it is almost universally a drop in DPR to enter arcane cascade. That is extra true for a magus at range that can recharge and spellstrike every turn. The point of that comment is show that them getting access to it is literally not breaking anything because to do it they are dropping DPR. So ask yourself WHY they don't get to have it? It makes no sense other than to claim a systemic bias in game design from Paizo.
Please engage with the actual critique here. There is a strong system bias of paizo game designers to strip class chassis features away from ranged combatants, or make them pay a feat tax, or make them pay a range tax, or etc. This has nothing to do with whether a ranged whatever is playable as is without the class chassis features. Its about WHY Paizo has a systemic bias to remove them when even using them likely drops DPR and most certainly because of ranged vs. melee balance will drop your characters DPR to even use the ranged options with said class feature. THAT is the thing I want fixed.

PossibleCabbage |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'm pretty sure the sorts of fixes we're going to get going forward are not "fundamentally rework the underpinnings of how things work" but "more feats, items, or archetypes that let you do things you couldn't do before." They're specifically not going to print something that obsoletes previous options.
I understand and appreciate that PF2 wanted to pare back how effective ranged combat is (Archers were DPR kings in PF1). Generally the obvious tradeoff in a game is that "offense for defense or defense for offense". So being able to safely stand where enemies aren't and hurt them shouldn't do the same amount of damage as "getting all up in their face where they can hurt you back." After all the game essentially comes down to both DPR and Damage Mitigation, not just the first thing.
One of the best things PF2 did was "make it so putting on heavy armor and picking up a big weapon" was something you would want to do for mechanical reasons, not just aesthetic ones. Since the characters in PF1 who did the most damage *and* had the highest ACs were Dex combatants.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if 90% of players and designers are ok with how range is being handled and 10% aren't, why are you assuming that the problem is with the 90% and not the 10%? Like, people have played other games with more powerful ranged options, so its not like they are misinformed. So if most people are ok with how it is now, why should Paizo cater to the minority who thinks its a problem?
What I want is for ranged characters to just get to use basic class features afforded to them by the class they pick. I have no issue with balance being enforced through keeping ranged weapons at artificially low damage dice or worse weapon traits, etc. I don't care if the class feature is garbage or drops DPR by using it.
I don't want to be a barbarian without rage or be a swashbuckler without panache, or be a <x without y>. I think that should be pretty easy to understand. The classes are defined by key class features and IMO everyone, independent of what weapon they use should get to use the class feature without a feat tax to enable w/e style of play they want. If Y is not a defining feature of class X then it shouldn't be in the class chassis at all for melee or ranged.
Right now there are 2 of 14 classes where the problem does not exist. I'd like to see 14 of 14 classes where the problem does not exist.
An appeal to popularity fallacy argument doesn't sway the needle here. If Paizo is going to define a class through fundamental class features they should be available to everyone. Where they don't do that or refuse to do that I will stand by my opinion and call them out for bad game design.

![]() |
I'm pretty sure the sorts of fixes we're going to get going forward are not "fundamentally rework the underpinnings of how things work" but "more feats, items, or archetypes that let you do things you couldn't do before." They're specifically not going to print something that obsoletes previous options.
I understand and appreciate that PF2 wanted to pare back how effective ranged combat is (Archers were DPR kings in PF1). Generally the obvious tradeoff in a game is that "offense for defense or defense for offense". So being able to safely stand where enemies aren't and hurt them shouldn't do the same amount of damage as "getting all up in their face where they can hurt you back." After all the game essentially comes down to both DPR and Damage Mitigation, not just the first thing.
One of the best things PF2 did was "make it so putting on heavy armor and picking up a big weapon" was something you would want to do for mechanical reasons, not just aesthetic ones. Since the characters in PF1 who did the most damage *and* had the highest ACs were Dex combatants.
Totally agree with the need to nerf PF1e archers. But I disagree that class features can't work for all playstyles. The class feature should work for everyone, the base weapon should be tailored to maintain that balance.
Even a half way approach would be better than what is currently implemented where class features are on a sliding scale of efficiency. For example I'd prefer rage on ranged weapons, but I would agree that 1/2 damage rage on all ranged weapons like they do for agile weapons and remove the raging thrower feat is a super easy errata patch. These aren't fundamental underpinning altering issues or solutions. But clearly people aren't even registering that the game is designed with this systemic bias in the first place which makes even having a fruitful conversation difficult.
Meanwhile it is frustrating to build out ranged focused characters in PF2e because they easily and frequently become decoupled from their most basic class mechanics.

Pronate11 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, many of the classes *are* defined by being in melee without reimagining them. The barbarian is someone who recklessly throws themselves into the middle of battle in a battle rage. Someone who kinda just deals more damage than normal with a bow is thematically a very different class. A swashbuckler with a bow is different enough from a melee swashbuckler both thematically and mechanically that it should be an archetype (almost all swashbucklers from media are melee dualists, and mechanically, you can't tumble through at range, nor can you use athletics maneuvers or feint, so you would be limited to 3 subclasses, and all of them would suffer from the lack of tumble though). Sure, some cases like armor inventor or the magus could be fix, but having every class be designed for every weapon means that classes can't do anything cool that doesn't work for bows. You wouldn't say that gunslingers should be equally good with a great axe and no gun would you?

PossibleCabbage |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

I guess one of the things I find unconvincing about "archery is for some classes and not for others" is that generally the idea of "what the character you want to play is like" comes before you pick a class and then you pick a class based on what classes are match that.
Like there's not actually a problem that wizards can't do two-weapon fighting or rangers can't cast fireball.
Like if I'm imagining a barbarian doing ranged combat, I'm having trouble with the mental image of "they just pull out a bow" since "they throw the axe so hard it goes through a guy" seems much more barbaric.

Sanityfaerie |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |

The comment on champions is missing the boat again. You have a key class feature that doesn't work with ranged options within the range afforded to those weapons by other balance cuts to weapon damage dice. Your comment about a champions being more isn't up for debate. Literally every class is 'more' than simply the damage they do with a weapon. Your just not engaging with the actual critique here.
I have two points to address, and this is one of them. First, you're not talking about "champions". You're talking about Paladins specifically. All of the other champs are range-agnostic. Now, Ranged Reprisal is pretty much a must-have feat for the Paladin, because increasing the radius of your Champ reaction is a big deal. Technically you could play a paladin who didn't use either a reach weapon or a ranged weapon, but it would be a mistake. trident-and-shield is actually one of the more solid paladin builds out there, specifically because it can be used in thrown.
As for what you're asking for... it's absurd. The Champion's reaction is already very string at range 3. Being able to increase the area of your reaction dramatically just by picking up a bow would marginalize every champ that wasn't a ranged paladin, and it would make champion archetype an absolute must-have for any ranged characters. Even at range 3, it's *already* quite good.
Past that, I find it kind of funny that you point to Magus as an argument in favor of "systemic bias against ranged" when the Starlit Span is the strongest magus build by a decent margin.
Here's the thing. You have multiple different complaints that you're trying to merge into one, and it's not working. Let's look at them....
- "Ranged is weaker than melee. It's a balance problem." This is flatly false. It's not. Ranged martial builds are *often* stronger than their melee equivalents. Magus, Thaumaturge, Gunslinger, Investigator, Rogue, and Ranger all have very solid ranged builds. The classes where ranged characters might struggle are generally signposted as such.
- "Some martial classes suffer at range, or only have niche ranged builds." Yeah. Okay. Your point? I mean, it's true. your'e not going to have a barbarian firing rage-empowered bolts from a crossbow. That's not what the barbarian is for. Paizo isn't trying to make all classes able to do all things. They're trying to let you build the character that fits your personal concept of awesome, while also not letting you cheese it all too hard. So... can you point to an example of an archetypical character out there that you can't play? Don't describe it using PF2 terms. Don't say "I want this class, but using a bow". Find some actual character from a book or a game or something that you want to play as but can't. Then come back and start complaining about a lack of breadth in PF2 ranged weapon options.
- "Ranged builds can't engage with their class features like melee builds can. This feels bad." Okay. That's true, at least in some cases... but it's a feels bad argument. It isn't but so strong, and it isn't going to overwhelm balance considerations. Also, plenty of people have to spend their level 1 class feat making their basic character concept work. Ranged Paladins/Barbarians/Swashbucklers aren't any different here.

Squiggit |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot
This is incorrect. It's 1 damage per shot.
I listed out the martial classes and gave you concrete examples of how core class chassis features simply don't work at range with ranged weapons
No, you gave examples of how some specific weapons don't work with some specific builds.
You then also list a bunch of things that apply equally to ranged and melee builds and claimed those are somehow specifically anti-range and just demand everyone takes that at fact.
Like, idk, you can just say "it sucks that barbarians and swashbucklers have to spend a feat for ranged options and can only use thrown weapons when they do" or "I wish thaumaturges could wield 1+ and two-handed weapons" or "Armor inventor needs errata" and that's completely fine.
But when you start saying things like like "Gunslingers are anti-range" or "Alchemists having an INT KAS is anti-range bias" or "Construct inventors giving bonuses to their pet is anti-range bias" you just undermine yourself.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, many of the classes *are* defined by being in melee without reimagining them... You wouldn't say that gunslingers should be equally good with a great axe and no gun would you?
But we don't need to reimagine anything. We just have to stop falling into TTRPG tropes that narrowly define classes. PF1e barbarians had savage technologists and urban barbarians. I can imagine a barbarian being able to use a bow with a draw weight so big that no other warrior could do it. Its really easy.
I would say that gunslingers should be afforded the same chassis options as fighter. That is a +2 in one weapon (limit to ranged if you'd like) and the removal of singular expertise. That way if they take mauler they can be as great with a great axe, but otherwise it falls behind at -2. It would go a long way to patching the triggerbrand and drifters who want to be in melee and at range.
I have two points to address, and this is one of them. First, you're not talking about "champions". You're talking about Paladins specifically.
I've explicitly said champion because my critique about the champion reaction is that it only works within 15ft of the enemy doing damage and your ally taking damage. That 15ft restriction is true for all Champions, not just the paladin, so please don't strawmen my argument. Effectively forcing the champion into melee with a ranged weapon is the critique as the class feature is not compatible with the weapons.
Being able to increase the area of your reaction dramatically just by picking up a bow would marginalize every champ that wasn't a ranged paladin, and it would make champion archetype an absolute must-have for any ranged characters.
I disagree with you that this would marginalize every champion. The trade off is in damage. Melee is and will always be doing more damage by large margins (30% for bows, more % for reload weapons). There are aura feats to consider as well that are limited in range, and you seem to forget the being in melee affords you a ton of amazing easy buffs including flatfooted (+2 to hit is a massive DPR boost), the option for AoO at L6 which is melee only (which with quick shield block and L14 champion reaction can afford you extra opportunities to use different reaction types).
Past that, I find it kind of funny that you point to Magus as an argument in favor of "systemic bias against ranged" when the Starlit Span is the strongest magus build by a decent margin.
I find it funny that you would suggest that any magus should not get access to a basic and weakening class feature. Spending 1 action to enter arcane cascade will drop your DPR so there is literally no reason not to provide it. The people you're punishing are actually the non-optimizers who want to fire off a couple arrows in a round instead of spell strike so they can do something with a third action like do a medicine check, recall knowledge, etc. It is a clear example of pointless systemic bias because its literally pushing people to only do the optimal attack routine vs. providing horizontal option progression and investment.
- "Ranged is weaker than melee. It's a balance problem." This is flatly false. It's not. Ranged martial builds are *often* stronger than their melee equivalents. Magus, Thaumaturge, Gunslinger, Investigator, Rogue, and Ranger all have very solid ranged builds. The classes where ranged characters might struggle are generally signposted as such.
I reject your assertion as not very convincing and flatly false. I find that ranged martial buolds are *often* weaker than their melee equivalents from all the DPR calculations I've done. Also again, not really my complaint in this thread.
- "Some martial classes suffer at range, or only have niche ranged builds." Yeah. Okay. Your point? I mean, it's true. your'e not going to have a barbarian firing rage-empowered bolts from a crossbow. That's not what the barbarian is for. Paizo isn't trying to make all classes able to do all things. They're trying to let you build the character that fits your personal concept of awesome, while also not letting you cheese it all too hard. So... can you point to an example of an archetypical character out there that you can't play? Don't describe it using PF2 terms. Don't say "I want this class, but using a bow". Find some actual character from a book or a game or something that you want to play as but can't. Then come back and start complaining about a lack of breadth in PF2 ranged weapon options.
I think that putting a key class feature into the chassis and then purposely going out of your way to strip it out again for ranged options is bad design. Thats literally my point. Not sure why you're talking about cheese here, as I've clearly stated the balance point should be elsewhere in the system and NOT in whether or not you get to even engage with your class chassis features.
Your gate keeping isn't needed. I don't need to go 'do my hw' on finding a PC narrative that can't be achieved in PF2e with mechanical benefit before I'm allowed to critique the system. I've been playing since 2e playtest and been with the system for years and I will always offer my opinion independent of w/e fake credentials you think I need to have before I'm allowed to engage in the community. I offered one above about an acrobatic archer braggart who tumbles through the battle field combining parkour with arrow shots (i.e., like a PF1e hooded champion) or someone who is able to finely control and harness their seething anger and use it to reach extreme states of tunnel vision/focused death (i.e., say an urban barbarian with a bow). It doesn't take much imagination to literally look at an archetype from PF1e and say, hey we could have that over here if you're struggling to think of things.
- "Ranged builds can't engage with their class features like melee builds can. This feels bad." Okay. That's true, at least in some cases... but it's a feels bad argument. It isn't but so strong, and it isn't going to overwhelm balance considerations. Also, plenty of people have to spend their level 1 class feat making their basic character concept work. Ranged Paladins/Barbarians/Swashbucklers aren't any different here.
You were really close there to getting some common ground before the hand waiving. It isn't a feels bad argument. The class chassis is the defining characteristic of the class. Its not that it just feels bad its that it is bad game design. I think that class X being defined by Y means that you really aren't class X if you can't do Y. Every other part of the class is just a list of proficiencies and has literally no narrative or mechanical defining characteristics to it. At that point just give me some point buys on a martial or non martial chassis and let me use them to buy proficiency in saves, attacks, AC, class DC, and spell DC because your stripping away key elements of design identity away and making amorphous meat sack PC #12 what you want/like/are defending here.
Can you point me to what melee martial class chassis has to spend a feat to make their class chassis features work? I can't think of one. Note that if you find one I would be equally on board with fixing that as well because it would be bad game design! This isn't about getting your build up and running its about getting to even use your basic class abilities afforded to you in the absence of any feats.

![]() |
VampByDay wrote:Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shotThis is incorrect. It's 1 damage per shot.
Red Griffyn wrote:I listed out the martial classes and gave you concrete examples of how core class chassis features simply don't work at range with ranged weaponsNo, you gave examples of how some specific weapons don't work with some specific builds.
You then also list a bunch of things that apply equally to ranged and melee builds and claimed those are somehow specifically anti-range and just demand everyone takes that at fact.
Like, idk, you can just say "it sucks that barbarians and swashbucklers have to spend a feat for ranged options and can only use thrown weapons when they do" or "I wish thaumaturges could wield 1+ and two-handed weapons" or "Armor inventor needs errata" and that's completely fine.
But when you start saying things like like "Gunslingers are anti-range" or "Alchemists having an INT KAS is anti-range bias" or "Construct inventors giving bonuses to their pet is anti-range bias" you just undermine yourself.
My responses in the thread started out provide examples of my initial 'what I want to change' where a responder saying that there was no systemic bias. So I provide examples for ~4 or 5 classes and was told it wasn't enough. So I provided examples for 12 of 14 classes that show there is systemic bias. You can restate that they aren't examples but you're just refusing to engage in a discussion at that point. If 12 of 14 martials can't use key class features with All ranged or some ranged weapons and have to put in feat taxes just to do so, and likely get sucked into 15-30ft ranges despite all those hoops jumped through to benefit from range then that is systemic bias whether you agree or not.
I never said Gunslingers are anti ranged and its strange for you to put those words in my mouth? I said one class feature (singular expertise) prevents them from using one set of ranged weapons (for no apparent reason). Its another example of needless niche protection for no gain and another example of the systemic bias in the game. One of my first post fixes was to ditch singular expertise.
Alchemists are a s%&$ show and that isn't just me saying that. Lots of other people are saying their base class chassis is weak in this literal thread other than me (I also said that in my first post as said they could get a KAS choice for DEX, master proficiency and master class DCs). KAS that aren't 18 are offset by extra damage elsewhere in the class chassis. Its true for inventors, thaumaturges, etc. The alchemist chassis might as well be called a caster chassis for all it provides here. A far cry from a PF1e grenadier alchemist that could fire off bombs ranged weapons. They don't even get martial weapons or master proficiency in simple weapons. There is more to fix here than can be done in a brief response paragraph.
For the inventor though, the fact that 2/3 sublcasses don't get the needed damage boost to offset the KAS is a mechanical problem. Where is the harm in letting all 3 inventor subclasses benefit from offensive boost on all weapons whether they be melee, whether they be ranged, or whether they be your construct (pick 1 and apply). There isn't any harm, just bad game design.
You seem fine to grant that my specific examples are okay to identify for changes but you don't agree with my assertion that it is systemic bias in the system. Can you tell me how many examples from how many classes are needed before the examples provided form sufficient evidence for you to be convinced of my assertions? For me the line is 50% of martial classes or more and I think we're well past that.

![]() |

I'm willing to concede there should be a ranged swashbuckler. Probably should be limited to benefitting only within 25 feet for both thematic and balance reasons.
That said, a longbow barbarian is silly. They were in the eberron mmo and they were rightfully mocked by the community. Also, gunslinger works fine in games with firearms. It's not as powerful as the other classes, but it fulfills its fantasy, which makes it better than the witch. (Imo, better than alchemist or swashbuckler, too) The gunslinger is bad without firearms, which is not a problem for me.
Red Griffyn, you keep accusing Paizo/the industry of systemic bias. Please see my comment below.
The problem with archers in every D&D-ish game has been:
1) Spellcasters are fragile and don't want to melee.
2) Against a group of melee enemies, half or more of the party needs to hold the line and protect fragile casters.
3) Half or more of players want to play casters.An archer is a martial who takes up a caster party slot. He doesn't hold the line.
PF2e has actually made this problem better, in my opinion. More players want to play martials, and fewer monsters have AoOs, so spellcasters can slip away.

Pronate11 |
I would say that gunslingers should be afforded the same chassis options as fighter. That is a +2 in one weapon (limit to ranged if you'd like) and the removal of singular expertise. That way if they take mauler they can be as great with a great axe, but otherwise it falls behind at -2. It would go a long way to patching the triggerbrand and drifters who want to be in melee and at range.
So they should stop being the gunslinger and become fighter 2? Because almost none of their class features work without loading weapons, and that's kinda their identity. If they use a bow, what is the difference between them and a fighter with some extra feats?

Sanityfaerie |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

So they should stop being the gunslinger and become fighter 2? Because almost none of their class features work without loading weapons, and that's kinda their identity. If they use a bow, what is the difference between them and a fighter with some extra feats?
I believe I have come to an understanding of their arguments. They'd prefer that PF2 have less texture. They want ranged combat to be more like melee combat, they want the barbarian to be more like the gunslinger. If Class A has a certain option, then why shouldn't Class B also have that option?
Personally, I like the texture here. If anything, I'd like to have more of it. They do not agree with me.

Deriven Firelion |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |

Starlit Span Magus is an absolutely brutal ranged class. I wouldn't even include them in the discussion of ranged characters as they could probably use a reduction in power. Eldritch Archer is pretty brutal as well, though more limited.
Arcane Cascade Stance is barely worth using for a melee martial.

Ganigumo |
The tradeoff for ranged isn't really an issue IMO, its very clear that given the option ranged is better than melee.
Really its the tradeoff between strength and Dex.
Strength gives more damage, since Strength weapons have the best damage dice and you add your strength to damage.
Dexterity gives you less damage but better defense, since it gives you armor and reflex and access to ranged weapons.
Most classes with the option will end up favoring Dex and ranged attacks unless it provides strong extra incentive to be melee, on top of that finesse weapons tend to be unanimously worse than their non-finesse counterparts.
Champion and fighter favor Str because of access to heavy armor, and Bulwark is a huge part of why.
Barbarian, Rogue, & swashbuckler have strong incentives because its tough (or impossible) to get their damage bonuses at range.
Inventor and Alchemist strongly favor dex, with inventor definitely favoring shooting. Toxicologist favors melee, because they get punished for missing ranged attacks, bomber is ranged, and mutagenist only favors strength because bestial isn't finesse. Both of these classes really appreciate being less MAD.
Magus also favors dex, since it reduces MAD, and it favors shooting strongly since the ranged spellstrike option is more action efficient than any of the others, which is a pretty big balance mixup.
I'm not sure where Thaumaturge stands, since I'm not too familiar, but I imagine they're better with dex for similar reasons as inventor.
Ranger can go either way, but I think generally favors dex and shooting. They're not very MAD just like fighters so they can afford to take a bit of both str and dex.
I could see a Dex barbarian working, although I'm not sure how you'd make it compete since finesse weapons are worse, maybe getting rid of the finesse/agile damage penalties. Adding the rage damage to bow attacks seems like a bit of a stretch though.
WRT warpriest I can see why they think its "balanced", they don't want them to be better than martials like in 1e, and clerics still have a ton of utility. Maybe the answer is in giving them better defenses? You could buff up their armor proficiency to master.
A few more warpriest buffs in the form of feat support could work too. Adding a hit bonus to channel smite, or a way to get easier access to true strike could help a lot. Or something that lets you cast a buff spell and strike for 2 actions?

Sanityfaerie |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

What warpriest needs, more than anything else, is an actual divine/martial hybrid class, so that the people who crave that fantasy don't keep going to warpriest as the best available option and feeling disappointed.
Like, warpriest is a full caster that also gets a healing font full of max-level spell slots. Their actual martial combat ability is barely more than the Bard. Their big problem isn't the thing that they are. It's the fact that so many people who play them really want to be playing something else instead.
It would also have helped if they'd had a different name.

Squiggit |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Most classes with the option will end up favoring Dex and ranged attacks unless it provides strong extra incentive to be melee, on top of that finesse weapons tend to be unanimously worse than their non-finesse counterparts.
I think Dex and Ranged get conflated too much here. Ranged is situationally good, but Dex in the absence of that is usually not great and we only see classes specifically choose Dex when their builds demand it.
Dex rogues and swashbucklers are popular because their mechanics are built around Dex.
Ranged Inventors and Magi are somewhat popular and strong, but their melee builds tend toward strength based ones because they're simply better (especially at low levels). You'll see archer fighters and some throwing barbs, but you'll almost never see either of them with a rapier.

Ed Reppert |

The one and only Hooded Champion Ranger Archetype. An archetype replacing Ranger's favored enemy (Hunt Prey in PF2) with Swashbuckler's Panache but applying it to archery.
Maybe we'll get it when they release the PF2 Advanced Class Guide.
Y'ask me we should have it already. :-)

Ed Reppert |

5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade to damage. That's such a terrible price to pay to be hitting people for 10d6+4+3d8+2+3 at level 20, and being far enough away that the death monster can't murder your. Oh, and you can do that most every round as you don't need to worry about moving around and repositioning, so every round can go "Recharge spellstrike, spellstrike" even without haste. Is this the most DPR per round? No, but it works.
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this progression:
Round 1: Spellstrike, Arcane Cascade
Rounds 2 and following: Recharge, Spellstrike
Once per round you could substitute a Conflux Spell for the Recharge, with the caveat of course that you have to take ten minutes to regain your focus point -- unless you have more than one.

Squiggit |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

VampByDay wrote:5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade to damage. That's such a terrible price to pay to be hitting people for 10d6+4+3d8+2+3 at level 20, and being far enough away that the death monster can't murder your. Oh, and you can do that most every round as you don't need to worry about moving around and repositioning, so every round can go "Recharge spellstrike, spellstrike" even without haste. Is this the most DPR per round? No, but it works.I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this progression:
Round 1: Spellstrike, Arcane Cascade
Rounds 2 and following: Recharge, SpellstrikeOnce per round you could substitute a Conflux Spell for the Recharge, with the caveat of course that you have to take ten minutes to regain your focus point -- unless you have more than one.
Nothing's wrong with it. The complaint is that unless you take the Starlit Eyes feat at level 4 Arcane Cascade doesn't actually do anything for the starlit magus.
Starlit Span is strong (really good) even, but it does feel weird to have what's essentially a vestigial class feature.

Ed Reppert |

What warpriest needs, more than anything else, is an actual divine/martial hybrid class, so that the people who crave that fantasy don't keep going to warpriest as the best available option and feeling disappointed.
Like, warpriest is a full caster that also gets a healing font full of max-level spell slots. Their actual martial combat ability is barely more than the Bard. Their big problem isn't the thing that they are. It's the fact that so many people who play them really want to be playing something else instead.
It would also have helped if they'd had a different name.
I dunno about a hybrid class, but certainly the doctrine could be improved.
I'm not too fussed about the name, but what would you suggest, rather than warpriest? Personally I'd rather see "cloistered cleric" changed, since that seems clunky to me. Maybe "priest".

Ed Reppert |

Nothing's wrong with it. The complaint is that unless you take the Starlit Eyes feat at level 4 Arcane Cascade doesn't actually do anything for the starlit magus.
Starlit Span is strong (really good) even, but it does feel weird to have what's essentially a vestigial class feature.
Ah, I see. Fair enough, I suppose.
Side question: What's the benefit of adding the magical trait to an otherwise mundane attack? For example you have a weapon that has no fundamental runes or other magic on it, and you have some ability that simply makes your attack "magical". What's the benefit?

Temperans |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Squiggit wrote:Nothing's wrong with it. The complaint is that unless you take the Starlit Eyes feat at level 4 Arcane Cascade doesn't actually do anything for the starlit magus.
Starlit Span is strong (really good) even, but it does feel weird to have what's essentially a vestigial class feature.
Ah, I see. Fair enough, I suppose.
Side question: What's the benefit of adding the magical trait to an otherwise mundane attack? For example you have a weapon that has no fundamental runes or other magic on it, and you have some ability that simply makes your attack "magical". What's the benefit?
Mostly ghosts and stuff that care about being hit with magical attacks.

Ed Reppert |

Ed Reppert wrote:Side question: What's the benefit of adding the magical trait to an otherwise mundane attack? For example you have a weapon that has no fundamental runes or other magic on it, and you have some ability that simply makes your attack "magical". What's the benefit?Mostly ghosts and stuff that care about being hit with magical attacks.
Ah. Should have thought of that I guess. Thanks. :-)

Gortle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

An archer is a martial who takes up a caster party slot. He doesn't hold the line.
I know many people play like this. But it is not really that true any more. It is possible to play in the front line as an archer. Just because you have a bow doesn't mean you have to hide. You do provide flanking. If the enemy has an AoO (15%) then step and shoot. Most archers are based off martials anyway and have reasonable hit points and defences. Dex based Fighters, Champions, Monks, Rangers, Investigators are all fine in melee. Rogues and Gunslingers are only one pip behind.

Riddlyn |
I'd like for Dex athletics, maybe return that 'finesse wealons allow you to use dex for their maneuver trait' rules misconception awhile back and make it true
Please remove Thaum actions manipulate tag, ai do not want ti get AoO from using amulets abeyance.
AoO isn't a common ability in this edition. I've played Magi in a few campaigns and I think I got targeted by AoO for casting once. It was in extinction curse and I think we ran into a greater barghest

![]() |
Red Griffyn wrote:So they should stop being the gunslinger and become fighter 2? Because almost none of their class features work without loading weapons, and that's kinda their identity. If they use a bow, what is the difference between them and a fighter with some extra feats?
I would say that gunslingers should be afforded the same chassis options as fighter. That is a +2 in one weapon (limit to ranged if you'd like) and the removal of singular expertise. That way if they take mauler they can be as great with a great axe, but otherwise it falls behind at -2. It would go a long way to patching the triggerbrand and drifters who want to be in melee and at range.
The difference is one class feat list is completely geared towards ranged options and the and the other is geared towards supports melee. That is literally the major real defining feature of these two class chassis, so its hard to pretend the fighter or gunslinger has an identity beyond that that is external to the currated feat options available to it. The only other thing I can think of is fighters get AoO (again supports melee) and extra feats (fun for MC builds, but otherwise not an identity feature).
As such, niche protection afforded by singular expertise is simply not needed and a pretty bad tradeoff (+1 damage on a aweful set of weapons instead of AoOs and 2 extra feats). People who wanted to be mostly ranged would have picked gunslinger since most of the feats are for ranged options. Conversely people who wanted to stay mostly melee would have picked the fighter since most feats are supporting melee (even the fact that they get AOO and gunslingers don't is a relatively
If gunslingers were 'the ranged class for all' that at least would have been a better division of 'design space' than here is one that isn't so restricted but is 90% melee, and the 10% ranged stuff are mostly trap feats along side a this is 90% ranged but only these specific bad ranged options, 10% you can do some melee but you won't ever be that great vs. these awful subset of ranged weapons (even though we will make up like 3 sub-classes to use melee options).

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to concede there should be a ranged swashbuckler. Probably should be limited to benefitting only within 25 feet for both thematic and balance reasons.
That said, a longbow barbarian is silly. They were in the eberron mmo and they were rightfully mocked by the community. Also, gunslinger works fine in games with firearms. It's not as powerful as the other classes, but it fulfills its fantasy, which makes it better than the witch. (Imo, better than alchemist or swashbuckler, too) The gunslinger is bad without firearms, which is not a problem for me.
Red Griffyn, you keep accusing Paizo/the industry of systemic bias. Please see my comment below.
AceofMoxen wrote:The problem with archers in every D&D-ish game has been:
1) Spellcasters are fragile and don't want to melee.
2) Against a group of melee enemies, half or more of the party needs to hold the line and protect fragile casters.
3) Half or more of players want to play casters.An archer is a martial who takes up a caster party slot. He doesn't hold the line.
PF2e has actually made this problem better, in my opinion. More players want to play martials, and fewer monsters have AoOs, so spellcasters can slip away.
I don't kow that holding the line is a valid argument in PF2e. It isn't until mid tier levels that melee characters even have reactions to help hold the line and for L1-L6 most monsters can just walk right past you to the back line.
Even so, archers are typically decent switch hitters and can form the 'second line'. I was literally playing DnD5e this week (I know, herasy!) and used my 1h+ off hand to draw a sword to provide flank against a squid monster to support the melee because I wasn't going to get outside the 20ft reach without triggering an AoO and didn't want to fire with disadvantage. Nothing in PF2e stops me from shooting in melee since most monsters don't have AoOs typically and having finesse melee weapon (that will be 1D6ish and I'll be doing mediocre damage at best) to help out other back line character.
The same is true that ranged characters make the best go between between back and front line if you need to do front line medicine, healing, dragging folks out, etc. because they typically are more robust than a caster.
Its also removing a lot of agency from casters. Like you could have a cloak of elvenkind to go invisible, you could step/cast, you could just stride away because, again, most creatures in PF2e don't have reactions. Casters have short range spells and often can benefit from creatures closing the gap so they didn't have to spend their third action 'getting into melee' and being stuck next to a swarm of monsters (instead using it to put distance between them and monsters again).
Lets be careful here. I'm not saying the 'industry' is biased against ranged options. This isn't some sweeping indictment of TTRPGs. I'm saying PF2e design as created by Paizo game designers has a systemic bias against coupling class chassis feature to ranged weapons as evidenced by the examples provided.

![]() |
Pronate11 wrote:So they should stop being the gunslinger and become fighter 2? Because almost none of their class features work without loading weapons, and that's kinda their identity. If they use a bow, what is the difference between them and a fighter with some extra feats?I believe I have come to an understanding of their arguments. They'd prefer that PF2 have less texture. They want ranged combat to be more like melee combat, they want the barbarian to be more like the gunslinger. If Class A has a certain option, then why shouldn't Class B also have that option?
Personally, I like the texture here. If anything, I'd like to have more of it. They do not agree with me.
If you'd like to use the word texture that is your prerogative.
Your observation that texture between classes should be removed isn't correct. I'm saying if one class is defined by a texture then that class should get their texture. I hardly find it compelling mechanically or narratively that a class defined by having Textures A, B, and C simply doesn't get A because it decided to pick up a ranged option.
In the same way I want the balance and mechanics of ranged weapons to be worked in to the weapon itself and not the class texture. Clearly this has nothing to do with ranged being more like melee or class A being like B.
If your observation is that rage is like arcane cascade is like panache is like X because they add damage then your essentially calling most class features copy paste derivatives. I don't agree with you there, all three of those are mechanically different, narratively different, and drive different play styles based on how you can enter said stance/achieve the condition.
The texture you seem to be defending is artificial construct texture that Class A/B/C must ONLY be melee because that is the TTRPG troupe we all have come to love or have 'smuggled in' from past TTRPG experiences. But in PF1e we already saw the amazing breadth of options and combinations afforded by the system so I challenge your assertion that any real texture is lost because IMO you're opening up more options which will provide more texture. A Ranged/Melee X could play quite differently depending on the conditions needed to satisfy using said class feature. If you heavily penalize using ranged or melee on a class chassis you are in fact 'losing' options, not gaining.

![]() |
Starlit Span Magus is an absolutely brutal ranged class. I wouldn't even include them in the discussion of ranged characters as they could probably use a reduction in power. Eldritch Archer is pretty brutal as well, though more limited.
Arcane Cascade Stance is barely worth using for a melee martial.
Folks get really fixated on this. This has nothing to do with whether the ranged magus is balanced. For the most part the balance issue was introduced by focus spell options in other classes. I am already on these forums/reddit having provided multiple inputs into ranged advice build threads for new players stating where the ranged meta is at. It just has no relevance to the discussion or issue I identified.
This has to do with whether the system designers have a bias against ranged options and whether the preferred option of charging feat taxes, limiting range, limiting weapon types, or outright not letting key class features work is a good thing.
IMO its bad game design and I don't think it should be done. Fundamentally your identity as a class in the game is defined by these things:
- Class Proficiency Scaling (really there are martial/non-martial with minor deviations)
- Class Features in the Chassis that aren't just proficiency bumps (e.g., rage, arcane cascade, champion reactions, implement empowerment, offensive boost, etc.)
- Class Subclasses (not used in every class, but used in most)
- Class Archetypes (really just the spell shot gunslinger has this)
- Class Feats (L10 feats can be picked up via multiclass)
I think the most fundamental and powerful of those defining features is the second one and assert that they should be equally available to all users of the class.
The magus has two class features in the 'second line' bucket of class chassis features: arcane cascade and spell strike. Both options are limited to melee. Spell strike as a feature isn't available for ranged unless you take a subclass. Even worse, arcane cascade isn't even available for ranged. I think all magi should be able to use both at melee and range and the subclasses should build up the incentives of picking a particular option. A twisting tree staff magus still wants all the melee benefits and ability to etch runes into their staff, but could become a really interesting switch hitter if their shifting spell striker staff could switch from bow to staff. The melee subclasses could (like laughing shadow) boost your arcane cascade damage in melee situations to incentive melee, but they could still have a fallback ranged option. Meanwhile the starlight span can include all the 'ignore ranged penalty' stuff and feat chains so they are incentivized to stay ranged but still have access to spell strike and arcane cascade.
Classes no matter what they do should get all the features of their chassis. If they don't then I think they should be removed from the chassis and made as a feat line, subclass feature, etc. There is no need to dive into whether the current meta would be balanced with that change. It doesn't matter, if it was designed properly from the start it would have been balanced against that diversity of options as opposed to what we have now which is "what is balanced in melee" and now lets take it away if you pick up a ranged weapon. Suddenly I lose a massive part of my class identity if I pick up a crossbow, bow, pistol, etc. is mechanically and narratively bad design. I'm suggesting a bottom up/build approach would be far better than a top down/constrain approach.

![]() |
VampByDay wrote:5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade to damage. That's such a terrible price to pay to be hitting people for 10d6+4+3d8+2+3 at level 20, and being far enough away that the death monster can't murder your. Oh, and you can do that most every round as you don't need to worry about moving around and repositioning, so every round can go "Recharge spellstrike, spellstrike" even without haste. Is this the most DPR per round? No, but it works.I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this progression:
Round 1: Spellstrike, Arcane Cascade
Rounds 2 and following: Recharge, SpellstrikeOnce per round you could substitute a Conflux Spell for the Recharge, with the caveat of course that you have to take ten minutes to regain your focus point -- unless you have more than one.
For better or worse, the meta is that instead of arcane cascade you should have used a true strike or saved it for a later turn where you need to move so you keep the 1 spell strike per turn rotation going. The extra statistical damage from true strike or having a non spell strike turn will far outweigh the +1 to +3 on ~4-5 spell strikes in a combat. Since the starlight span focus spells don't include a strike like the other subclasses and their class feats are mediocre compared to other magus options, people just dip cleric, witch, or psychic for FP spells to burn on their spell strike. Ideally you want to incentivize a spell strike turn, recharge/conflux turn, alternating kind of playstyle and as is the current configuration of that subclass really pushes people to look outside of the class.

![]() |
Fighter class definetly support ranged combat if you ignore the trapfeats (double and triple shot)
1. Point blank shot
1. Exacting strike
2. Assisting shot
4. Parting shot
8. Blind fight
...Imho ranged build should do less DPR as you do not have to spend any action to close the gap between you and your adversary.
I am glad that pf2e did not make the DND 5E mistake where Strength is useless and best DD is the hand crossbow commando.
IMO:
- PBS - is okay, but situationally. The horngali hornbow removes the need for a longbow to get a 1D8 dice, and depending on your static modifiers the +2 to damage may not be worth the action spent entering the stance. Its great at L14 with stance savant or if you are fighting something with big resistances.- ES is good for every fighter. This is in most top/optimized melee and ranged attack rotations. Here is an example of something that 'just' works for melee and ranged (see it can be done!)
- AS is situational. Will you really use if you have ES?
- PS can be okay. Could be worth it on some builds but its not a gold standard. It is a limited way to get flatfooted with ranged option which is difficult and does support a fighter getting that deadly trait to trigger.
- BF is okay. I think its better on melee who are trying to whack invisible creatures that are adjacent to them than ranged combatants, but it probably depends on if your GM is throwing fog clouds around at will.
I don't disagree ranged builds should do less DPR. As it stands they do ~2/3 the damage of a 2H melee (maybe another 20-30% lost with reload weapons compared to 1H+ weapons). But that is before you factor in flatfooted, reactions, all the aforementioned class features, massive action economy boosters for melees that remove that movement issue (sudden charge for example). In white room analysis they do 2/3 damage, but in many real combats it quickly gets less and less. Enemies also spend their actions to close the distance and there are really only a handful of scenarios or ranged is superior (flying creatures before fly spells/items, massive open environments starting 300+ft away from each other, or where the enemy only has ranged combatants and you have to close the gap/climb the castle wall/etc. before they can engage). For the most part the combats (at least in my experience) are predominantly in tight dungeons with 5ft hallways.
My point above is that if you're going to heavily penalize them in DPR loss you shouldn't also penalize them in striping out all of the defining class chassis features afforded to them by their class choice and then maybe make them buy it or a partially working version back with a feat (if they can even do that depending on the class).

Scarablob |

The only argument I can think of against ranged swashbuckler is that the fantasy of that class is about being daring, fearless and running into danger with a smile on their face, while ranged weapon (and ranged combat in general) gives off an impression of "safeness" and "carefullness", that is antithetical to the class. I'm pretty sure that ranged swashbuckler options are limited because of that, because one that would simply hit things from affar from the safety of the backlines would simply lack "panache".
The obvious choice would be to make a "gulch gunner" kind of deal, of giving them ranged weapon but rewarding them only if they use them in close quarter, but I don't know how they could balance that in PF2, were most creatures don't have attack of opportunity.

Martialmasters |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Ed Reppert wrote:For better or worse, the meta is that instead of arcane cascade you should have used a true strike or saved it for a later turn where you need to move so you keep the 1 spell strike per turn rotation going. The extra statistical damage from true strike or having a non spell strike turn will far outweigh the +1 to +3 on ~4-5 spell strikes in a combat. Since the starlight span focus spells don't include a strike like the other subclasses and their class feats are mediocre compared to other magus options, people just dip cleric, witch, or psychic for FP spells to burn on their spell strike. Ideally you want to incentivize a spell strike turn, recharge/conflux turn, alternating kind of playstyle and as is the current configuration of that subclass really pushes people to look outside of the class.VampByDay wrote:5) Magus: OH NOES! You are missing out on a whole 3 damage per shot if you dont' have arcane cascade to damage. That's such a terrible price to pay to be hitting people for 10d6+4+3d8+2+3 at level 20, and being far enough away that the death monster can't murder your. Oh, and you can do that most every round as you don't need to worry about moving around and repositioning, so every round can go "Recharge spellstrike, spellstrike" even without haste. Is this the most DPR per round? No, but it works.I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this progression:
Round 1: Spellstrike, Arcane Cascade
Rounds 2 and following: Recharge, SpellstrikeOnce per round you could substitute a Conflux Spell for the Recharge, with the caveat of course that you have to take ten minutes to regain your focus point -- unless you have more than one.
Yet another reason for me to redesign true strike and create spell potency runes

Squiggit |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Can you tell me how many examples from how many classes are needed before the examples provided form sufficient evidence for you to be convinced of my assertions?
It's not a matter of a sufficient number or tipping point for me, I just think a few of the examples were really bad.
Pronate11 wrote:So they should stop being the gunslinger and become fighter 2? Because almost none of their class features work without loading weapons, and that's kinda their identity. If they use a bow, what is the difference between them and a fighter with some extra feats?I believe I have come to an understanding of their arguments. They'd prefer that PF2 have less texture. They want ranged combat to be more like melee combat, they want the barbarian to be more like the gunslinger. If Class A has a certain option, then why shouldn't Class B also have that option?
Personally, I like the texture here. If anything, I'd like to have more of it. They do not agree with me.
IDk that seems uncharitable. They never said anything about making Barbarians into Gunslingers, just opening options.
And having more options means more potential characters that can exist, which is certainly more textural rather than less, isn't it? And certainly if the only way you can define a class is through niche protections that points to a lack of texture in the first place.
Then again who knows, 'texture' in this context always felt kind of buzzwordy and inherently hard to define in a 'I can just say this instead of being specific' kind of way.