| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although they are better than their previous incarnations, rangers (along with alchemist) seem to be the weakest of the core classes.
Let's start with their subclasses: the edges.
Precision is a far weaker sneak attack.
Flurry is the only good one but fighters can poach it at lvl 10 with agile grace.
Outwit is infamously bad.
Now let's go over their feat trees which there are a few:
* Animal Companion, their animal companion scales 2 levels slower than druids or anyone who takes the beastmaster dedication.
* Recall Knowledge, thaumaturges do the 'monster hunter' gimmick far better.
* Focus Spells are some of the weakest I've seen and don't really do much (gravity weapon is a joke).
* Hunted Shot & Twin Takedown are alright but monks can do the same with flurry and don't have to spend an action setting up hunting prey, they also get stances which give strong unarmed attacks (d8 or better) which ranger cannot get due to needing to dual wield or use a bow.
* They also get the worst AoO.
Sorry if this comes as bait, I'm just upset how rangers gotten basically nothing from the remaster & Howl of the Wilds.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Precision is better than Flurry...
And to add more: Ranger is neither strong nor bad, it's average. Fighter tends to overshadow Ranger when it comes to pure combat abilities and Ranger doesn't have much for out of combat abilities besides high Perception and Outwit Edge which, I agree with you, doesn't really shine before very high levels.
But on the other hand, the class is quite solid. Nothing is really bad in the Ranger.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're ignoring a ton of context in these comparisons. Right away you're comparing precision to sneak attack while ignoring that precision rangers can use d12 weapons and rogues can't.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd say "average" is the right way to put it. Ranger doesn't feel like it struggles to play the game, but some other classes do shine brighter.
I think a big difference is also what kind of campaign you play. If you constantly play 6-player PFS tables which mostly scale by adding enemies, Hunt Prey is not going to feel great. In a four-person party doing a lot of hexcrawling where you can actually hunt an enemy before the encounter now and then, it's different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry ranger is an slightly less accurate fighter with a better action economy.
Precision ranger is an sligthly weaker sneak attacker (though it doesn't need anything to proc it) that also has better action economy.
I won't defend outwit. It has its uses, but I don't see anyone taking it when you have the more flavorful and fun options in the other two.
Honestly, outwit could easily be a higher level feat for any ranger.
Honestly flurry rangers aren't fun or good unless you only want to stand in one spot and shoot arrows, which is an incredibly boring play style to me.
It can potentially deal a lot of damage, but needing to do anything other than shoot arrows craters your damage output.
Precision I feel is the default ranger and has the flexibility of being either ranged or melee and doesn't lock you into trying to only attack.
Outwit...I struggle to see a use for.
That said, I feel like Ranger is the poster child for average.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers are decent. If there's a core problem with them is that they both have a specific themeing that you have to play around (so if you're not interested in wilderness survival the class is already out) and that they're almost too well rounded, in the sense that they're never going to dominate a specific area of the game in the way some other classes might.
... While I don't think they're bad, it is a little frustrating to put one next to a rogue, who's got the same perception as you, better skills, better debuffs, comparable damage, better saves (at least in the long term), and in return you have a little more HP. Better tracking?
IDK. I've played a couple rangers and I've never been unhappy with the characters I've made, and I have had several rangers at my tables with similar experiences, but at the same time if you asked me to identify the class' key selling points I'd have trouble really naming something, which is something I think even classes worse than the Ranger have less trouble with. You don't even have snares anymore.
Honestly flurry rangers aren't fun or good unless you only want to stand in one spot and shoot arrows, which is an incredibly boring play style to me.
Even then you struggle a bit because bows have kinda poor base damage and you're boosting accuracy over damage.
I think the best flurry ranger I've ever seen was actually using a greatsword, maximizing their damage output for each of those accuracy enhanced swings, but the quirks of that campaign meant they didn't have to worry about moving very much (lots of small hallways and melee enemies coming to them) which would otherwise make it a bit awkward.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What the heck did you just say about me, you little twerp? I'll have you know I graduated top of my Ranger class in the Eagle Knights, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the Aspis Consortium, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in guerrilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire Andoran armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the heck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before in this land, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying that nonsense to me over the Internet? Think again, fool. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across Andoran and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're done for, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Andoran Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable self off the face of the continent, you little brat. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you fool. I will unleash fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're finished, kiddo.
|
I wish Monster Hunter (using Nature for all creatures) was baseline.
Then they could be the class that excels at identifying monsters before encountering them.
Bonus: with some "GM tips" on how to adjudicate identifying tracks in terms of DCs since doing so suddenly allows RK checks, etc.
My highest level PFS character is a Ranger.
Orc Hold Precision Ranger with an Butchering Axe.
Get Stealth and wear a crab shell with dreadlocks on your head.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is in a bit of a weird place. It's not so much weak as a little clunky. They don't put a whole lot on the ranger chassis to un-clunkify them with the Hunt Prey being required to make them work.
They are good archers and good two-weapon fighters. Precision is better at lower level, flurry is better at higher level.
Precision works with two-handed weapons, which means you can make a one big hit character.
Precision or flurry works well enough with archery, but you need to carry a lot of arrows with flurry as volume is where your damage comes from. Precision is a lot more ammunition friendly and just as good as flurry at lower level if not better. Once you get haste and can machine gun off five arrows a round, flurry becomes better so long as you can carry enough arrows.
Flurry two-weapon rangers are in a tough position with Hunt Prey. They do so much damage they blow through the target, then they have to Hunt Prey to switch to maintain their Hunter's Edge benefit. This is where the clunkiness occurs in multitarget fights. Paizo should have given them a free action ability or at least feat to switch targets after a kill to smooth Ranger play in multitarget fights. Not sure why they did not do this given how obvious and common this problem is. Should be a no brainer design choice which I think was missed in the Remaster and I would love to hear the justification for why they did not provide the ranger with an ability of this kind given how multitarget fights work. Why would they want to hamstring the ranger in multitarget fights compared to other martials? Doesn't make much sense in my opinion.
That's really what the ranger needed in the remaster. An improved hunt prey feat or ability which allowed them to very easily switch hunted prey to a new target in multitarget fights.
Otherwise, the ranger is fairly good class. Versatile with combat and support abilities. The Monster Hunter feats could be better, but the shared Hunter's Edge is pretty nice as a different kind of support martial to a bard.
That's about all I'd fix on the ranger is the Hunt Prey clunkiness when changing targets after killing something mid round. If Paizo did that, the class would in a great place.
I wish Monster Hunter (using Nature for all creatures) was baseline.
At least for Outwit. That would be much more inline with the Thaumaturge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger isn't terrible. It isn't great either. You can build a mechanically solid character. It just doesn't have that wow factor or kicker ability that some other classes seem to have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ranger might be the prime meridian of Pathfinder class power. If you're better than the ranger you're in a good place, if you're worse than the ranger you need help.
Half of the classes built would fall below median power. By definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The precision ranger in my game out damages everyone including the fighter because he doesn't have to close melee. I think Rangers are incredibly potent and consistent. However they are very boring and rotation dependent.
Like every fight starts, Gravity Weapon > Hunt Prey > Hunted Shot
Every following round is Hunt Prey(if initial Prey is dead) > Hunted Shot > Command Animal Companion or move if needed. Repeat until there are no more enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half of the classes built would fall below median power. By definition.
Yup. And you keep designing classes intending for them to be in the upper half of power, as humble of a goal as that seems, you will power creep perfectly fine options into being "under performing."
It's kinda why I'm so gun-shy to praise the Commander, as while it seems like a great fit for pf2e, I do think it needs to be toned down, which is a hard sell for a lot of people to ever hear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer. No.
My outwit ranger is one of my favorite characters for their in-combat versatility and out-of-combat skill power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ranger might be the prime meridian of Pathfinder class power. If you're better than the ranger you're in a good place, if you're worse than the ranger you need help.
If everyone better than them is merely 'good' and everyone worse is in trouble that sounds less like a median point and more like barely acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that I don't think rangers are that bad honestly. I played one from 1st to (I think) 4th level for a very short campaign and I was pleased with it. It was a flurry ranger and I took both Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown to be a switch hitter, and I was in a party with a thaumaturge and I didn't feel outclassed at all. The class certainly lacks some "oomph" because it doesn't feel unique really. A fighter is very accurate and has nice feats to build around certain weapon playstyles, barbarians are more basic but deal tons of damage, rogues have tons of skills and skill feats and need to plan a little to flank ASAP and thus proc their sneak attack, etc. A ranger effectively plays like a fighter and the feats are even reminiscent to the style of feats fighters have but built around hunt prey and better action economy. That's why I'm of the opinion that outwit should either be baseline or be a high level feat for rangers because that would make the ranger a class that stands between rogue and fighter in regards to being skilled and being a "pure" martial.
I was somewhat active during the first stages of the One D&D playstest (mostly because I was interested if they really were going to solve anything about that system) and if there was something clear about the 5e community there is that nobody agrees what the role of the ranger should be. The class kinda works like a jack of all trades because its a martial with some magic, skills, and access to a companion, though it doesn't shine at none of them. It kinda works like a tutorial class in a sense because it has access to all the mechanics of the system so it can function as a perfect introduction into the system. This is pretty much applicable to PF2e too, though the PF2e ranger is way more functional than its 5e equivalent. I think at some point (likely PF3e at this point) should redefine what a ranger is.
Best things about ranger is camouflage, great at stealth attacking.
Otherwise unimpressive damage and utility within combat, modest buffing if you give flurry to the better martial in your group and some cc options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mostly experience low damage on the ranger? Archery is low damage for any class other than Starlit Span Magus.
Two-weapon flurry really hammers as you gain levels and stack striking and property runes with the flurry bonus. I ran a flurry ranger up to level 11 or so with an animal companion and the gangup ability, they really diced stuff up using Goblin Slicers.
I come from 5e so I personally think ranger (and monk) are pretty great, but I'm coming from a place where my two favorite classes were pretty awful
My son is playing a Flurry Ranger in Kingmaker, after having played a 2h Fighter in Extinction Curse. The Fighter was better, but he's pretty happy with the Ranger. It works. I might suggest to him to take a companion to give him some extra stuff he can do, but running up and making a bunch of attacks (and then being able to twin parry) is working for him.
The class isn't spectacular, but it's fine.
Personally I never played a Ranger in PF1. I haven’t played one in PF2. They don’t interest me. Not because I think they are weak. I just don’t really get inspired by the theme* and the combat abilities aren’t exactly interesting.
But maybe I should look at the chassis, get the animal companion and just go with that - it doesn’t need to be “nature warden” or “Strider expy”… maybe I can go more beast-master warrior or pet-warrior.
*If I want to play nature-guardian I’ll pick Druid. My first PF2 character was a Hobgoblin (Warmarch) Druid with a wolf companion. Though admittedly he was less nature-boy and more “squad auxiliary (caster)”…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, rangers work fine outside of Outwit. They do have a few niches where they are the best in the game.
-Tracking.
-Not being tracked. (This makes them ideal scouts since they won't lead enemies back to you.)
-Ignoring difficult terrain.
-Ignoring the first range increment on their weapon (plus Far Shot if you really want to snipe from 4,635 feat away.)
- Switch hitting. (Because your Edge applies to all weapon groups and is equally effective in melee or at range.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot the most important asset of the Ranger: Action economy. After Monk and Summoner, it's the 3rd class with the best action economy in the game.
Hunted Shot + Timber Sentinel is for example the kind of rounds the other players will envy (and it's super thematic).
You could just porch it as a Fighter!
I’ve never really had an interest in rangers for the four decades I’ve been playing these games, until I saw a newbie play a crossbow wielding ranger. Although she is leaving our game because upper level play is too much of a time investment, everyone’s sad to see her go because her damage output often tracked with (or even outpaced depending on die rolls) the barbarian and swashbuckler in the party.
With the gunslinger archetype (or perhaps a gunslinger with ranger archetype), I now see a viable option to play a functional crossbow-based character. As soon as I figure out the optimal damage versus action economy I’ll have a fun character. So no, rangers are not weak - especially if you get creative and play to the classes’ strengths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger was the first class in PF2 to excite me, after not caring for them in any of the 3 most recent D&D editions. I think they do plenty to incentivize ranged combat in fun ways, with the versatility for everything from a crossbow sniper to someone flinging a ton of shuriken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Ignoring the first range increment on their weapon (plus Far Shot if you really want to snipe from 4,635 feat away.)
- Switch hitting. (Because your Edge applies to all weapon groups and is equally effective in melee or at range.)
Switch hitting is an undervalued major strength of the ranger. Many players laser focus on one weapon/ damage style, but being able to switch to the most effect tool for the encounter at hand makes the ranger a solid character in situations where other classes might struggle or be frustrated.
Ignoring the first range increment of bombs is great for getting conditions onto enemies before they have a chance to close to melee.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Switch hitting is an undervalued major strength of the ranger.
idk I feel like whenever people talk about the ranger switch hitting gets really hyped up (even pre-remaster when switch hitting's action economy was horrible).
Maybe even a bit overstated. In non-ABP games the cost of two fully upgraded weapons is a monstrous bit of investment, and putting the resources into keeping both strength and dexterity maxed out can leave you feeling kind of tight when it comes to other stats (although the ranger can somewhat get away with it).
I feel like the ranger is the 2nd best damage archer and the best two-weapon fighter built onto a fairly good chassis.
Hunt Prey after killing a target in the middle of a round is the main rule I see holding a ranger back from being a top tier class. That is my experience with the ranger.
It's even easy now to add on the Archer Archetype to get access to Point Blank Stance and Double Shot if you feel like building an even better archer. Or grab Eldritch Archer to do a poor man's Starlit Span magus on top of your normal machine gun or precision arrows. Precision Damage even stacks with Eldritch Arrow shot if you have Hunter's prey on them already.
|
|
I have a Ranger main in PFS who favors archery and has an animal companion.
So far, being able to switch between bow and sword has "saved" party composition a couple of times when no other frontliner steps forward. I think largely in part due to d10 HPs, meaning I can take a couple of hits, and more when other support characters back my play.
I started 16/16 to ST/DX and use half of my boosts there as well, so yeah, can only focus on one other ability score for skills. I made the thematic choice and picked Wisdom, all slowly building towards Master Monster Hunter to suddenly leap to the front of the line w/ Recall Knowledge checks.
The character is really fun to play.
If I can get a drop on an enemy using Track to Hunt Prey (and GM is onboard with this particular Meta), then shower several arrows the first round of the fight, sometimes that is sufficient to draw fire while other characters get properly set up. The d10 HPs mean I can usually survive at least one round of focused fire, then decide how to play it from there.
I think Rangers are in a good place. There are some "hard choices" between Animal Companion feats, Recall Knowledge feats, and Warden spells through the mid levels though. Which, is probably a good thing.
=)
idk I feel like whenever people talk about the ranger switch hitting gets really hyped up (even pre-remaster when switch hitting's action economy was horrible).
Switch hitting is an undervalued major strength of the ranger.
It wasn't really any different for the ranger pre-remaster because they have quick draw and 95% of the time dropping a weapon is as good as stowing it.
Maybe even a bit overstated.
Hey, I didn't say it was a universally applicable niche, or even that good a niche. But it is a real niche and it makes rangers excel in outdoor campaigns, which is to be expected. They're a middle of the road class indoors, but they have a bunch of small outdoor advantages that synergize well with each other. The result is that they actually kind of rock in the wild, especially if your GM leans into the tracking like rainzax mentions.
In non-ABP games the cost of two fully upgraded weapons is a monstrous bit of investment,
That's only sort of true. The cost is real, but it's not like you're actually purchasing most of these runes. The way loot distribution works, you're going to find excess +1 striking weapons way before you hit +2 weapons. And since you only get half the value from selling such finds, you might as well get the back up weapon going. The only campaign I can think of where this didn't hold true was Quest for the Frozen Flame which just borked the treasure system in general.
putting the resources into keeping both strength and dexterity maxed out can leave you feeling kind of tight when it comes to other stats (although the ranger can somewhat get away with it).
Also sort of true, but you don't actually need to max both stats. Dex builds probably don't need to go past +2 strength because of the diminishing returns on propulsive. But that +2 was something a finesse or archer build was going to want anyway, so the only real cost to switch hitting is that you didn't sell every +1 striking weapon past the first. You wind up with the same accuracy on both weapons, and agile is a pretty swell reason to hot swap.
Strength builds will likely have an accuracy penalty thanks to lagging dex scores. But their base damage is higher on propulsive and thrown weapons, which partially offsets this. Even if you're less accurate than with your great sword, shooting many creatures from 200 feet away will give you multiple turns of free attacks before they can actually reach you. Plus, you lack bulwark natively and are playing a class people expect to be sneaky, so it isn't like dex investment was ever bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter with archer dedication is a better switch hitter, better AC, never needs to setup with hunt prey, and better accuracy.
Ranger is outclassed in everything they can build for except stealth, even better with call of the wild.
High level rangers could be their own stealth kill team, but unless you have a group that works with that play style then skirmishing isn't often helpful. A problem some Monks run into, they just seem to be able to excel at athletic maneuvers when needed.
Ranger is far down on the list of party friendly optimization, but if no ones out classing you in the thing you built for it can feel good, while in a group that caters to their play style I'm sure they could shine.
The ranged/stealth martial role isn't needed in most groups, rogues can do the stealth while also having debuffs and skills, casters or a fighter can do the ranged better, so it's not easy to fit a Ranger into a group where they can stand out.
Why would a fighter be a better switch hitter? They have no precision damage and if they have to move off the bow, then they are just a Master Martial with melee weapons with no damage booster. Not sure why they would be considered better. You can pick up heavy armor with a ranger pretty easy, so the AC is pretty much the same. Doubt a skirmisher would wear heavy armor.
I don't think the fighter is better with the bow or at two-weapon fighting having seen both in action to high level.
Ranger is the 2nd best archer in the game for damage and the best two-weapon fighter as you reach high level.
Archer dedication gives you full scaling with bows. If going precision then your building for less max damage anyhow. Fighter after 10 can get 3 or 6 damage on every attack compared to Ranger 2d8 once. Fighter just does more damage. Double slice out does twin takedown and double shot beats twin shot.
Archer dedication gives you full scaling with bows. If going precision then your building for less max damage anyhow. Fighter after 10 can get 3 or 6 damage on every attack compared to Ranger 2d8 once. Fighter just does more damage. Double slice out does twin takedown and double shot beats twin shot.
Fairly certain that archer reading is not RAI, but it is certainly RAW.
Double Slice is a 2 action activity and with movement ends up being all you can do.
Once a ranger hunts prey, even when they move they get 3 attacks at eventually a better BAB with big weapons.
Generally, flurry is better at high level even for archery, but precision gets better as you level as well.
It depends on the level. At level 20 and through most levels the flurry ranger is better at multiple attacks than the fighter with more efficient action economy.
Double Slice only works against a single target and is a 2 action activity.
Once you pick up Double Prey, your twin takedown works against multiple targets as does your Edge.
The same kind of limitations with Double Shot.
In the long run, the ranger is a better archer and two-weapon fighter. A few levels here or there the fighter is better, but most levels the ranger is superior in both those areas.
Fighter is best with two-handed weapons. They aren't the worst archers, but aren't top tier either unless you grab Eldritch Archer and live for the big hit.
This all plays out as you level up. Fighter doesn't have good action economy as an archer or two-weapon fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Deriven, Starlit Span Magus put aside the Precision Ranger is one of the best ranged damage dealer in the game. Compared to the Fighter I find it more solid as it allows you to go through the first levels without dealing ridiculous damage. Also, the Ranger feats are the ones you want for archery (the Fighter can poach them but it has to wait for a few levels to do so).
Flurry doesn't shine during most of your career for archers. The damage is not high and it has no versatility. Once you get to Masterful Hunter, it starts to change and Flurry becomes better than Precision for damage. But I personally don't build characters for these levels so I'd definitely go Precision on an archer.
For 2-weapon wielders, Flurry is extremely dependent on how your GM run encounters. If the enemies are always coming to you, allowing you to maximize your number of attacks, then Flurry works wonder. If on the other hand your GM likes mobile fights then the lost action every round makes Flurry much less effective. As a consequence it's really hard to judge this build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group for one has made the "Ranger can switch their hunted prey as a free action when their current one dies" a couple of months ago. For us, that makes the class much more dynamic to play and very solidly puts it into "good" territory.
It also stops the Fighter from eating their lunch after 4th level, which always bothered me.
To put it more simply, the fighter is best at taking advantage of reaction attacks which favors big two-handed weapons.
The ranger isn't particularly good at reaction attacks and is built with a more direct playstyle where they are good at archery and two-weapon fighting while being adequate with two-handed weapon given precision works with two-handed weapons.
Archer dedication gives you full scaling with bows. If going precision then your building for less max damage anyhow. Fighter after 10 can get 3 or 6 damage on every attack compared to Ranger 2d8 once. Fighter just does more damage. Double slice out does twin takedown and double shot beats twin shot.
Archer gives you how scaling, sure. But it doesn't give you quick draw, which is super helpful for switch Quick shot lets you quick draw the bow, but 90% of the time you'll want to do the reverse. This is especially problematic if you want to use double slice in melee because you're now burning two actions on swapping. (Although I suppose you can take lightning swap to drop that down to one action, but that's costing you a pretty valuable feat slot and you're still doing less actions than the ranger.)
And it doesn't let you ignore their second range increment like Hunt Prey. In outdoor maps, taking penalty on the 100 to 200 foot range can absolutely be relevant. (I can't tell you how many times I was glad my gunslinger had a 200 foot range increment in Kingmaker.)
The other thing is level 10+ options matter less than options below it. The majority of Olay happens in the lower levels. If you're starting at level 10 or 11, those are great. But PFS and most APs start at level 1, and you aren't guaranteed to hit those higher levels even if your adventure can even go that high.
All I know is that I've never felt ineffective playing my PFS Ranger (8th level)... and he's a Dwarven flurry Ranger that uses a Clan Dagger and switches between a short sword and a light hammer.
I just upgraded the hammer to a +1 Striking Returning to give him a Ranged Strike in case it's needed. (He uses doubling rings with Runes on the Clan Dagger.)
My group for one has made the "Ranger can switch their hunted prey as a free action when their current one dies" a couple of months ago. For us, that makes the class much more dynamic to play and very solidly puts it into "good" territory.
It also stops the Fighter from eating their lunch after 4th level, which always bothered me.
Damn that would feel good. Alas, thats my only major gripe with the class, hunt prey feels really bad as a main feature, quite the chore.
Thanks everyone. I've rethought a lot about the ranger now. It can do cool stuff, I guess my problem is it's not that *flashy* but that's just me.
It's certainly the best to take advantage of animal support moves (birds FTW!)
:)
Thanks everyone. I've rethought a lot about the ranger now. It can do cool stuff, I guess my problem is it's not that *flashy* but that's just me.
It's certainly the best to take advantage of animal support moves (birds FTW!)
:)
it has some pretty flashy moves at higher levels, the "impossible" feats come to mind. Shooting an entire volley of arrows or the sword equivalent of the hora hora rush is pretty cool
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue I see with Rangers is Hunt Prey burns up so many actions in fights against multiple enemies. That said, if you're a Flurry Ranger with Twin Takedown, you can make up those actions. Precision is good too, especially with an Animal Companion. Poor Outwit is really weak tho.
I dunno what OP is talking about with the Focus spells are weak comment. Imo, Rangers have some of the best Focus spells of any martial (Gravity Weapon, Animal Feature, Soothing Mist).