| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concepts sell the class for most people.
Its the job of the mechanics design to make the actual playing the concept fun.
I meant out of the classes that we knew they weren't going to change that much (so not the witch, because we knew they were going to be remade). I don't think nobody expected for rogues to have ruffian buffed to use martial and advanced weapons, thief rogue to be able to use sneak attack with unarmed attacks, Gang Up to receive a considerable buff, and I don't know which other things changed about the class (I don't include martial weapons here because that was announced and IMO was a needed change for rogues). Warpriest clerics also received a ton of buffs, druids didn't have the metal anathema anymore, bards got martial weapons and warrior bards a pseudo-sustain for corageous anthem. The only classes that stayed more or less the same was the ranger, which I find weird because outwit criticism is way more prevalent than criticisms of other classes that did get changed in the book. I feel the reason has to be time constraints.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment.
"Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean
Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
I'm probably showing my age and personal biases but I have no clue who Dean Winchester is. And can't think of a single "Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that". But I'm pretty sure you know who Aragorn is.
Lord of the Rings has been a primary source for D&D since chainmail. Rangers are VERY firmly embedded in its DNA (came in the first supplement after the White Box IIRC).
Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment."Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
Different streams maybe but I haven't heard of that character either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean
Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.I'm probably showing my age and personal biases but I have no clue who Dean Winchester is. And can't think of a single "Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that". But I'm pretty sure you know who Aragorn is.
Lord of the Rings has been a primary source for D&D since chainmail. Rangers are VERY firmly embedded in its DNA (came in the first supplement after the White Box IIRC).
One of the main characters of Supernatural. It was on for like 15 seasons (though that was at least 5 too many).
And yes, everyone knows who Aragorn is. If that's the bar, very few classes are going to meet it. But the archetype character the Thaumaturge is focused on is not some super obscure thing either.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But somehow they took rogues which were already one of the best classes in the system and buffed them a ton.
If there was a class I expected to see improved in PC1 it was the ranger.
The rogue designer has the most skills and has boosted Diplomacy and Deception. He told them they needed a boost and they believed him.
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean
Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.I'm probably showing my age and personal biases but I have no clue who Dean Winchester is. And can't think of a single "Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that". But I'm pretty sure you know who Aragorn is.
Lord of the Rings has been a primary source for D&D since chainmail. Rangers are VERY firmly embedded in its DNA (came in the first supplement after the White Box IIRC).
Sure, Rangers are hella D&D. But that's not as good a thing as it used to be. While the PF2 remaster is very much still D&D with the serial numbers filed off, Pathfinder still needs to distinguish itself from D&D, legally speaking, and I think they should do more than file serial numbers for PF3.
Wizards of the Coast might have backed down from the last OGL retraction, but it's possible they will try again. And they have enough money to make even a bad case drain Paizo's coffers. Having almost all of the core classes be identical to D&D's just feels like a bad move. (And kind of a boring one.)
It doesn't help that the PF2 ranger has such a high cost to pay to maintain the traditional nature talents, and that they aren't equally appropriate across all campaigns. The Thaumaturge might feel esoteric, but it fits a much wider range of games. There's just not that much keeping someone who wants to play a ranger from building a fighter who spends skill feats and maaaaaybe archetype feats to get survival and nature stuff.
They chose player core 1 classes carefully and ranger belongs there.
Thaumaturge does not, very few people outside of pathfinder will know what one is.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm pretty sure you know who Aragorn is.
If you did, you'd realize pretty quickly he has almost nothing to do with the PF2 ranger though.
I like Rangers, but they're kind of weird in the sense that most of their identity at this point is self referential.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, if you look at the ranger of older editions or even a PF2e ranger with certain builds, they don't really look like Aragorn at all. Aragorn was a dude that was a strong warrior with really survival skills, which in reality is a fighter that specializes in the Survival skill. Aragorn didn't have an animal companion or spells, he wasn't a monster hunter either, and he didn't fight with either two weapons or with a bow (which are the playstyles associated with rangers). Do you know which character fits this description though? Drizzt Do'Urden. The ranger hasn't been Aragorn for like more than 20 years. Rangers are Drizzt Do'Urden now. This is the same as rogues not being an analogue of Bilbo either.
As I already said in this thread, rangers have an identity crisis in which they don't know what they want to be. They cover a lot of areas but don't really specialize in any of them, and unlike other martials that have a more defined niche (barbarians being the angry warrior or Conan-analogue, rogues being thieves or assassins, champions being the devout holy warriors, or monks being a cluster of Eastern tropes) a ranger is just all of them but neither at the same time, which is a niche that is already covered by the fighter, that is the niche of being the "niche-less" martial class.
I don't think rangers are going to disappear in this or the next edition because they became a staple of TTRPGs at this point, but much how the PF2e ranger is closer in its implementation to the PF1e slayer than the PF1e ranger I think a future PF3e should probably deepen in the only aspect of the class that isn't covered by the other core classes, which is monster hunting.
Ranger concept is a naturey hunter and tracker skilled with a bow and probably has an animal of some kind.
This games ranger concept is closer to legolas.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Legolas isn't a nature hunter, doesn't have an animal companion, and I don't recall him having good track abilities (unless having elf superpowers counts as tracking skills, in which case all LoTR elves would). Legolas is just a bow fighter.
I mean, Legolas isn't a nature hunter, doesn't have an animal companion, and I don't recall him having good track abilities (unless having elf superpowers counts as tracking skills, in which case all LoTR elves would). Legolas is just a bow fighter.
Sorry yeah those were two separate statements. The general idea of a ranger.
Pathfinder legolas is like both a flurry and a precision ranger is kind of what i was going for with the comparison.
Different streams maybe but I haven't heard of that character either.Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment."Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
Dean Winchester was kind of a weird example. Try Van Helsing or Trevor Belmont.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger concept is a naturey hunter and tracker skilled with a bow and probably has an animal of some kind.
This games ranger concept is closer to legolas.
It's not that the ranger concept is unclear or even unpopular. But as illustrated by the pushback on your Aragorn and Legolas examples, they aren't especially rooted in fiction staples. Can you name a character outside of RPGs and RPG inspired media who actually checks all the classic ranger boxes? Especially when you factor in spell casting. Which would be fine if:
A) Wilderness or tracking was a consistent part of Pathfinder adventures.
And
B) Pathfinder still wanted to hew as close to D&D/OGL traditions as possible.
But neither of those is true anymore. Rangers just make more sense as part of a Howl of the Wild style theme book. Meanwhile, Thaumaturge might not be a household name, but it simultaneously oozes specific flavor while being mechanically flexible and fits perfectly in just about any campaign. They just do the monster hunter, don't if knowledge thing better than the Ranger does, and that's a more important niche than "naturalist fighter." The only thing narrowing their applicability is their one handed weapon restriction.
Dean Winchester was kind of a weird example. Try Van Helsing or Trevor Belmont.Different streams maybe but I haven't heard of that character either.Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment."Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
Those i recognize.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger concept is a naturey hunter and tracker skilled with a bow and probably has an animal of some kind.
This games ranger concept is closer to legolas.It's not that the ranger concept is unclear or even unpopular. But as illustrated by the pushback on your Aragorn and Legolas examples, they aren't especially rooted in fiction staples. Can you name a character outside of RPGs and RPG inspired media who actually checks all the classic ranger boxes? Especially when you factor in spell casting. Which would be fine if:
A) Wilderness or tracking was a consistent part of Pathfinder adventures.
And
B) Pathfinder still wanted to hew as close to D&D/OGL traditions as possible.
But neither of those is true anymore. Rangers just make more sense as part of a Howl of the Wild style theme book. Meanwhile, Thaumaturge might not be a household name, but it simultaneously oozes specific flavor while being mechanically flexible and fits perfectly in just about any campaign. They just do the monster hunter, don't if knowledge thing better than the Ranger does, and that's a more important niche than "naturalist fighter." The only thing narrowing their applicability is their one handed weapon restriction.
My group are new to ttrpgs, never played dnd or pathfinder. They knew what a ranger was without any clarification from me. They didnt have any clew what a thamauturge was. One of my players picked ranger too. Another picked druid. wilderness themed classes are not so niche that they need to be in a separate book.
Dean Winchester was kind of a weird example. Try Van Helsing or Trevor Belmont.Different streams maybe but I haven't heard of that character either.Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment."Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".
"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.
I'd argue Trevor Belmont (Netflix) would probably be a fighter since he seems to be highly proficient with a ton of weapons and didn't seem to be really knowledgeable about monster hunting even when it was its job (he didn't really exploit their weaknesses, but rather beat them with martial skill), though Trevor Belmont (videogame) like most Belmonts would be a sort of thaumaturge. The first time I saw the thaum's implement I felt they had to be inspired by Castlevania's sub-weapons.
Then again, It's been a hot minute since I last saw Netflixvania, so I'm probably forgetting a moment in which Trevor was indeed knowledgeable about monsters, but even then, I don't recall him being a survivalist either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger concept is a naturey hunter and tracker skilled with a bow and probably has an animal of some kind.
This games ranger concept is closer to legolas.It's not that the ranger concept is unclear or even unpopular. But as illustrated by the pushback on your Aragorn and Legolas examples, they aren't especially rooted in fiction staples. Can you name a character outside of RPGs and RPG inspired media who actually checks all the classic ranger boxes? Especially when you factor in spell casting. Which would be fine if:
A) Wilderness or tracking was a consistent part of Pathfinder adventures.
And
B) Pathfinder still wanted to hew as close to D&D/OGL traditions as possible.
But neither of those is true anymore. Rangers just make more sense as part of a Howl of the Wild style theme book. Meanwhile, Thaumaturge might not be a household name, but it simultaneously oozes specific flavor while being mechanically flexible and fits perfectly in just about any campaign. They just do the monster hunter, don't if knowledge thing better than the Ranger does, and that's a more important niche than "naturalist fighter." The only thing narrowing their applicability is their one handed weapon restriction.
My group are new to ttrpgs, never played dnd or pathfinder. They knew what a ranger was without any clarification from me. They didnt have any clew what a thamauturge was. One of my players picked ranger too. Another picked druid. wilderness themed classes are not so niche that they need to be in a separate book.
I didn't say they were specific to TTRPGs, but RPGs in general. The ranger concept is ubiquitousin video games too, largely thanks to D&D influence. Again, being readily understood is not itself a good justification for being a core class, especially when including it as a focal point makes you more legally vulnerable.
Sure, plenty of players pick ranger and druid. But would those classes have been GOOD picks in Agents of Edgewatch? Would the ability to talk to animals or ignore forest terrain be useful in an urban game? Would a pet bear following you around make sense in a high society intrigue game? Does having a 200 foot effective range on your bow matter when you're raiding crowded drug dens?
That's the problem with the ranger, not whether they are iconic. They are thematically and mechanically tied to the outdoors, which is simply not a constant part of the Pathfinder experience like it might have been for AD&D. Fighters work equally well in any setting. Their class features always apply and their thematic blank slates that can be pushed in the nature direction through skills. For all barbarians have a really specific quasi tribal flavor, their rage mechanics work fine in cities and can be reflavored into a various forms of battle trance. Heck, even the druid works loses less in an urban campaign. They may have less opportunities to talk to animals, and certain feats or spells might be worse choices. But despite leaning more into nature as a theme their core chassis is remarkably low on things which are most relevant outdoors.
Meanwhile the ranger has the survival and range bonuses of hunt prey, trackless journey, nature's edge, and unimpeded journey. And sure, you can play in an urban campaign and get little to no use of those features... But doesn't that just feel bad? Compare to the fighter's class features. Reactive Strike, bravery, battlefield surveyor, and combat flexibility just work anywhere. That's pretty much true of any core class, beyond maybe spellbook style casters learning spells.
A lot of this stems from how many different types of stories you can tell with Pathfinder clashing with the iconic baggage inherited from early D&D. Early D&D gave you XP for gold, which informs what kind of stories you told: ones where looting was a goal in and of itself. It's not hard to see how the thief/rogue class was a natural fit. But modern Pathfinder and D&D published adventures are typically about heroically saving the day and stopping evil at great personal risk.
If you divorce yourself from rogues having an iconic history, do thieves feel like an appropriate fit for heroic tales? What place does thievery have in an AP, which has a tight plot you don't want to derail by getting thrown in jail or running from the law? Heck, what place does it have in a sandbox game when WBL is so tightly regulated and wealth imbalance between players usually feels bad? The criminal roots of the rogue concept stopped making sense as a core idea when crime became a vanishingly small part of the game. Luckily for the rogue, almost none of its mechanics actually call for you to be a criminal to apply. You're just good at whatever skills you choose and at backstabbing people. The ranger isn't so lucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think scouts (both the military kind and the kid kind) and rangers (army rangers and green barrets...or whatever your national equivalent is) keep the ranger firmly in the zeitgeist for people who might even be removed from fantasy nerdism. The person out in the sticks who can handle themselves just fine is a prevailing source of romanticism for people in their escapist game time away from the grind of daily life. That's why I think ranger would be more identifiable to the average joe as a fantasy trope over thaumaturge. I definitely agree with ranger being the core of the two
Not all rogues are theives, and there's examples of rogues in fiction that can fit in an heroic party. The literal concept of the "rogue" in D&D and TTRPGs is likely derived from LoTR's Bilbo. Han Solo is also another common inspiration for the scoundrel trope, which is covered by rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem with the ranger, not whether they are iconic. They are thematically and mechanically tied to the outdoors, which is simply not a constant part of the Pathfinder experience like it might have been for AD&D. Fighters work equally well in any setting. Their class features always apply and their thematic blank slates that can be pushed in the nature direction through skills. For all barbarians have a really specific quasi tribal flavor, their rage mechanics work fine in cities and can be reflavored into a various forms of battle trance. Heck, even the druid works loses less in an urban campaign. They may have less opportunities to talk to animals, and certain feats or spells might be worse choices. But despite leaning more into nature as a theme their core chassis is remarkably low on things which are most relevant outdoors.
Rangers still are great trackers in a city environment. They also have great perception to notice all sorts of details that help the party.
This is probably their most difficult to match contribution and allows an alternative to playing the rogue concept.Because of this bounty hunters, search and rescue, spies, assassins, and snipers all can be done well with the right ranger subtype.
On top of that they can fight, up close or at range, whatever you want to build for.
Hunt prey has exploration uses in any environment where there is someone the party wants to find or just notice things about, if outwit the ranger can handle social encounters really well (sure, at the expense of fighting better).
So mechanically its not all wilderness.
One of the wins I think the ranger got in PC1, taking the 'natural' requirement off nature's edge to make the rangers less wilderness dependent.
Wish they'd gone a step further and done the same to Trackless Step (and maybe something with favored terrain) but trackless isn't a hugely impactful feature.
I've always love the 'urban ranger' space so was really pleased to see PC1 opening it up just a smidge more with that change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think scouts (both the military kind and the kid kind) and rangers (army rangers and green barrets...or whatever your national equivalent is) keep the ranger firmly in the zeitgeist for people who might even be removed from fantasy nerdism. The person out in the sticks who can handle themselves just fine is a prevailing source of romanticism for people in their escapist game time away from the grind of daily life. That's why I think ranger would be more identifiable to the average joe as a fantasy trope over thaumaturge. I definitely agree with ranger being the core of the two
Why is "more identifiable" the best metric for core, though? An identifiable concept that doesn't fit all campaigns and can be covered through other classes feels like a pretty thin justification. What was more solid was the legacy of D&D when that was a selling point and not a legal liability.
Not all rogues are theives, and there's examples of rogues in fiction that can fit in an heroic party. The literal concept of the "rogue" in D&D and TTRPGs is likely derived from LoTR's Bilbo. Han Solo is also another common inspiration for the scoundrel trope, which is covered by rogues.
Not all rogues are thieves, but they are heavily rooted in crime, not just theft. The definition of their subclass is literally "a fraudulent and often illegal activity that is often carried out by means of extortion or intimidation."
Also, Bilbo and Han are fun and all, but both are reluctant heroes being dragged along on adventures they didn't sign up for, which is actually a really hard concept to execute in a TTRPG without using extreme rail roading.
Rangers still are great trackers in a city environment.
Not until high levels. The DC to Track on a surface which doesn't hold prints, like a stone road, is 30.
They also have great perception to notice all sorts of details that help the party. On top of that they can fight, up close or at range, whatever you want to build for. So mechanically its not all wilderness.
I never said they were all wilderness, but almost every class feature outside of proficiencies are. Which is not a problem any other core class has. (Beyond Investigator who also shouldn't be core.)
Hunt prey has exploration uses in any environment where there is someone the party wants to find or just notice things about, if outwit the ranger can handle social encounters really well (sure, at the expense of fighting better).
Not really. It only works on creatures. You can't use it to find hidden objects or secret doors. How many times have you Seeked creature you were already aware of (you had to be to hunt it) in EXPLORATION mode? That's virtually non-existent. Tracking is really the only exploration use without Outwit.
The problem is that Tracking is a narrowly defined activity. All it lets you do is follow trails left by creatures on foot. You can't track through air or water without a master warden spell. There's no feat AFAIK to let you track teleportation signatures or across planes. You need feats to do it at full speed, meaning even if you track a creature they will outpace you. If you do it as an exploration tactic, you're not Searching or Avoiding Notice, which are both incredibly useful on a ranger. You can't use Survival to Gather Information. The only way to make Hunt Prey widely useful is the weak sauce Bounty Archetype, and you're still rolling Diplomacy with that.
For comparison, let's see what Blades in the Dark uses as their Track equivalent skill, Hunt.
When you Hunt a target, it’s all about precise and skillful execution—your talent brought to bear against the target, your victim. Hunting is about performing on your own terms— you stalk the target to their lair, you select the ambush point, you line up the target in your sights and take the shot.
The Hunt action is broader in scope than mere marksmanship. It’s the ideal action for tracking, stalking, and discovering the location of anything or anyone.
If Rangers could use Track to cover all that, they'd be in a much better spot. But PF2 uses much less broad skills, and survival might be the least broad of all. You can't even use it to subsist in an urban environment. Honestly, if they rolled the bounty hunter dedication benefits into the base ranger package, that would at least help a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said they were all wilderness, but almost every class feature outside of proficiencies are. Which is not a problem any other core class has. (Beyond Investigator who also shouldn't be core.)
Almost every?
Rangers have one class feature that's wilderness facing: Trackless Journey.
It's a fairly minor one too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like you and I have a different idea of its uses.
The ranger can hunt prey on a person the party is talking to increasing their ability to notice the dirt on the persons shoes look very much like the dirt from the graveyard. Based on how old it looks the ranger might even have an idea of how long ago it was the person was at the graveyard. A ranger will be great at things like this with high perception and nature skill + hunt prey's bonus.
how many applications of noticing something relating to their prey can you think of that has nothing to do with wilderness stuff? They really get a +2 to perception relating to their prey.
Tracking is also not limited to tracks in the form of footprints. It also includes anything disturbed or distinguishable as from your prey.
Cities have a lot of traffic and that makes tracking someone different in nature and yes more difficult or impossible if you have nothing to go on. Gather information though first can give something to look for and track.
Think of applications like tracking a secret society by looking for buildings that have their secret signs or people using hand gestures and wearing society specific pins. If players tell me what they are looking for it changes the difficulty to match. These are all tracks.
But if the GM is seeing tracks and saying you can only follow footprints yes that makes the ability much more restrictive.
But then again maybe I am applying the skill too broadly?
I never said they were all wilderness, but almost every class feature outside of proficiencies are. Which is not a problem any other core class has. (Beyond Investigator who also shouldn't be core.)Almost every?
Rangers have one class feature that's wilderness facing: Trackless Journey.
It's a fairly minor one too.
Trackless Journey may be the closest thing to entirely wilderness facing, but lots of stuff is much more likely to come up in wilderness. Difficult terrain, tracking, and extended range increments. That's basically every non-proficiency class feature they have beyond the Hunter's Edge. The fact that they CAN be used in urban environments doesn't make them likely to be.
Trackless Journey may be the closest thing to entirely wilderness facing, but lots of stuff is much more likely to come up in wilderness. Difficult terrain, tracking, and extended range increments. That's basically every non-proficiency class feature they have beyond the Hunter's Edge. The fact that they CAN be used in urban environments doesn't make them likely to be.I never said they were all wilderness, but almost every class feature outside of proficiencies are. Which is not a problem any other core class has. (Beyond Investigator who also shouldn't be core.)Almost every?
Rangers have one class feature that's wilderness facing: Trackless Journey.
It's a fairly minor one too.
What about a scene where the party tracks down a creature that slipped into a part of the city under disrepair. Woudlnt the streets have lots of rubble and debris that would also be considered difficult terrain?
Could the ranger invest in stealth and moving faster in stealth like the rogue might to keep back. climb rooftops and keep along the roofs watching the party below?. That ranger would probably be able to make use of the extra range. And if your playing a ranger that is not melee this might actually be preferable to staying down with the party right?Outwit is great for this actually but the stealth bonus from hunt prey being limited to one target is still an issue with it. Maybe should just be a bonus to stealth while hunting prey period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Difficult terrain, tracking, and extended range increments.
Difficult terrain: "Crowded thoroughfares and similar areas are difficult terrain", "Stairs are difficult terrain for characters moving up them", "If the cobblestones are in poor repair, they could be difficult terrain".
Tracking: Finding dirt/mud streets, snow covers streets, broken tile on a roof, a knocked over sign, a torn piece of cloth on a stall corner... Tracking seems fine in an urban setting.
extended range increments: Shuriken are Reload 0 and a range of 20', so work with Hunted Shot. Air Repeaters have a range of 30'. Seeing ranges of 25'+ or 35'+ don't seem out of place in an urban area. That's besides the existence of rooftop fights and different elevations.
This seems like you and I have a different idea of its uses.
The ranger can hunt prey on a person the party is talking to increasing their ability to notice the dirt on the persons shoes look very much like the dirt from the graveyard. Based on how old it looks the ranger might even have an idea of how long ago it was the person was at the graveyard. A ranger will be great at things like this with high perception and nature skill + hunt prey's bonus.
how many applications of noticing something relating to their prey can you think of that has nothing to do with wilderness stuff? They really get a +2 to perception relating to their prey.Tracking is also not limited to tracks in the form of footprints. It also includes anything disturbed or distinguishable as from your prey.
Cities have a lot of traffic and that makes tracking someone different in nature and yes more difficult or impossible if you have nothing to go on. Gather information though first can give something to look for and track.
Think of applications like tracking a secret society by looking for buildings that have their secret signs or people using hand gestures and wearing society specific pins. If players tell me what they are looking for it changes the difficulty to match. These are all tracks.
But if the GM is seeing tracks and saying you can only follow footprints yes that makes the ability much more restrictive.But then again maybe I am applying the skill too broadly?
You absolutely are, at least from a RAW perspective.
Hunt Prey doesn't buff all perception checks relating to their prey. It buffs Seek actions. Your graveyard example is probably applicable, though I'm not sure I've ever seen an adventure include something like that. Seek lets you find a creature that's not currently observed and see through disguises for Impersonate. It is a separate action from Sense Motive. It doesn't increase your perception DC against Lie. I don't think it even increases your perception DC against Hide or Sneak, technically.
Your Track examples aren't supported by the rules at all. Literally all the sample tasks are following foot prints, or at least following similar things like snapped branches. There's nothing indicating "tracks" encompasses things like people's clothes or gestures, or architecture. The opposite is in fact implied, since Subsisting is handled by Society instead of Survival in settlements. All of these sound like Society checks to me. Diplomacy checks to Gather Information might also work, or Occultism if you have the Schooled in Secrets feat.
This would fit right into Blades in the Dark, though. I actually really like your examples and am tempted to steal them as a house rule... But it's defo a house rule. PF2 very specifically designates what skills can be used for actions. You can't use Acrobatics to Long Jump without a feat. You can't use Medicine to Earn Income without a specific exception in the adventure setting. You can't Make an Impression with Performance without a feat. You can't use Arcana to identify abberations. I'm not saying these are good rules, but they are the rules. And that really hurts some skills, and by extension classes that are tied to them.
This seems like you and I have a different idea of its uses.
The ranger can hunt prey on a person the party is talking to increasing their ability to notice the dirt on the persons shoes look very much like the dirt from the graveyard. Based on how old it looks the ranger might even have an idea of how long ago it was the person was at the graveyard. A ranger will be great at things like this with high perception and nature skill + hunt prey's bonus.
how many applications of noticing something relating to their prey can you think of that has nothing to do with wilderness stuff? They really get a +2 to perception relating to their prey.Tracking is also not limited to tracks in the form of footprints. It also includes anything disturbed or distinguishable as from your prey.
Cities have a lot of traffic and that makes tracking someone different in nature and yes more difficult or impossible if you have nothing to go on. Gather information though first can give something to look for and track.
Think of applications like tracking a secret society by looking for buildings that have their secret signs or people using hand gestures and wearing society specific pins. If players tell me what they are looking for it changes the difficulty to match. These are all tracks.
But if the GM is seeing tracks and saying you can only follow footprints yes that makes the ability much more restrictive.But then again maybe I am applying the skill too broadly?
You absolutely are, at least from a RAW perspective.
Hunt Prey doesn't buff all perception checks relating to their prey. It buffs Seek actions. Your graveyard example is probably applicable, though I'm not sure I've ever seen an adventure include something like that. Seek lets you find a creature that's not currently observed and see through disguises for Impersonate. It is a separate action from Sense Motive. It doesn't increase your perception DC against Lie. I don't think it even increases your perception DC against...
I try to reward creativity and make skills matter as much as possible.
Looking at seek specifically I actually think it gives enough leeway for this kind of seek. Area is the hunted preys person, each relevant detail on hunted prey has DC to beat to detect the object for example the mud on dirt or mud on their shoes.After noticing the mud it would be a nature check to actually determine the mud is similar or the same as dirt from the graveyard (given having been to the graveyard first to know that information) and how long ago about this person was in the graveyard based on how much its dried.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers are in an odd place. Outside of combat bonuses from hunt prey bonuses a lot of the core ranger feats could be archetype feats.
At this point I feel the concept of 'bounty hunter' has a more generic core appeal and could take the place of Ranger as a core class with most of the same feat but less wilderness theme with wilderness-y flavour being the archetype. But too late for that this edition.
Removing the nature dependency and super animal/plant/dragon limitations to some feats would go a long way and not really break the class.
Mechanically, I feel like the outwit skill bonuses could just be rolled into the other edges and the class would still be very balanced. Outwit could be buffed a little, have it apply to saves as well as AC and maybe give them a reaction where they can apply off-guard to their target if the target misses them on an attack.
Outwit struggles in that to get good use out of it (given how tightly PF2e's math is balanced) you want to invest in dex, wisdom, charisma and intelligence (for those Additional Lore checks) which makes the class way too mad.
Couple that with Animal Empathy still triggering off Diplomacy rather than Survival or Nature the number of skills a Ranger needs to invest in to do their schtick (particularly if outwit) is not viable. Animal empathy is already super specific and hard to get good use of without requiring investing in attributes and skills the don't align well with the rest of the class schtick.
PF2e does not reward and often feels like it actively punishes generalists/dabblers.
Remaster ranger was a missed opportunity. The crossbow feats still don't make it a great combat style (or competitive with bows) and the action enhancing requires either access to cover or investing in Deception and charisma or its not even close to reliable enough against significant foes to make a difference. Ranged combat is already weaker in PF2e, many adventures as written make taking advantage of range before melee hard to pull off (maybe 1 round).
Remaster ranger could have given them auto proficiency increases in Survival. Could have given them additional skill feats ala swashbuckler for Survival, Nature, Deception, Intimidation or w/e (Rangers used to be a greater number of skill points class). Damage wise the class is ok, it fails to be as good an archer as either a fighter archer or Starlit span Magus which is an issue. Its worse at x-bows than gunslinger. Rangers aren't really good at anything that someone else isn't as good or better at other than maybe tracking and difficult terrain which have very niche applications.
Couple that with Animal Empathy still triggering off Diplomacy rather than Survival or Nature the number of skills a Ranger needs to invest in to do their schtick (particularly if outwit) is not viable. Animal empathy is already super specific and hard to get good use of without requiring investing in attributes and skills the don't align well with the rest of the class schtick.
This is partly why I think outwit is a poorly made subclass. The intended feats for outwit lead you into taking Master Monster Hunter at 10th level, though unless you start the campaign at that level it means that most outwits have to retrain their skill increases into other skills that aren't Nature or even feats if they took Additional Lore to have lores to cover most of the basics. I don't care what anyone says about it, but this is IMO bad design.
In all honesty, if not part of the other hunter's edges, outwit could easily be part of an archetype called "Monster Hunter" or soemthing like that, that in the dedication would give you both Hunt Prey and the Monster Hunter feat, and then have Monster Warden and Master Monster Hunter as feats later down the line. It could probably even be a part of the bounty hunter archetype if you decouple Monster Hunter from the dedication.
I already said this, but I'm sure the ranger didn't receive changes in PC1 because Paizo didn't have enough time, though I would still want to know why they prioritized other classes that were already in a good spot but decided to left the ranger as is when, even if not a bad class per se, its usually considered to be a very "mid" class overall.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already said this, but I'm sure the ranger didn't receive changes in PC1 because Paizo didn't have enough time, though I would still want to know why they prioritized other classes that were already in a good spot but decided to left the ranger as is when, even if not a bad class per se, its usually considered to be a very "mid" class overall.
...because "mid" isn't really a problem.
If a new player comes in knowing they want to play a wilderness warrior and goes to ranger and picks the feats that make them happy, then they'll be able to have fun with the results and generally not feel bad about it. Outwit Edge is a little funny, but it's also not a newbie trap. The edges are basically "hit hard", "make a bunch of attacks", and "that weird third thing that you might be able to do something cool with if you do a bunch of tricks to optimize it right". The fact that outwit winds up kind of disappointing even if you do "optimize it right" doesn't change the fact that it's not going to appeal to newbies in the first place. The newbies who want to play a weird character for the sake of playing a weird character aren't going to go for ranger in the first place.
If a player goes to the advice boards and says "I'm building a Ranger and I want help doing X" then the answer is basically never going to be "don't play Ranger. That's a terrible idea." Further, there are builds that the ranger is well-suited for, and reasons you might want to play one. If you want to go all-in on snares, you probably want a ranger. If you want to team up with an animal companion and wreck face together, that's a good reason to go ranger too. Archer rangers are a very solid and straightforward build, and flurry rangers can run some fun "I identify as a blender" games.
When you're pushing yourself as hard as you reasonably can to respond to a major upheaval and also fixing a bunch of fundamental structural flaws that have been uncovered over years of play, "it's very mid" is just not a particularly strong call to action.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
idk I feel like "it's a little bit underwhelming and there's been some dissatisfaction with the way its core mechanics come together in play, also there's a consistent pattern of people misunderstanding some of its dynamics because the game doesn't communicate them well and they aren't high impact enough to always feel meaningful" is a great reason to give a class a little touch up.
Especially when we're out here buffing the f%+*ing rogue along the way.
Unfortunately, PC1 was a little underbaked and it meant the Ranger got passed over.
I wonder if the game designers just felt differently about the balance.
We all see how much they value RK in general. So a ranger subclass that gets a +2 to rk prey in their eyes is very strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers are in an odd place. Outside of combat bonuses from hunt prey bonuses a lot of the core ranger feats could be archetype feats.
At this point I feel the concept of 'bounty hunter' has a more generic core appeal and could take the place of Ranger as a core class with most of the same feat but less wilderness theme with wilderness-y flavour being the archetype. But too late for that this edition.
Removing the nature dependency and super animal/plant/dragon limitations to some feats would go a long way and not really break the class.
I like this idea. Just call the class "Hunter" instead, which works for bounties and monsters alike. Wilderness stuff could still be fine for in-class feats but doesn't need to be so hard coded.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People thinking that replacing the Ranger with the "imaginary BS weakness go!" class in the core for PF3 being a good idea is one of the wildest takes I've read on this forum and I've been around for a long time...
The imaginary BS weakness go!" class is better designed than the ranger. There's nothing surprising with that-- Paizo is getting better at class design as they go along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is not a bad class. An errata adding one line to hunt prey allowing it to shift to a new creature as when your prey dies would put the class where it should be.
Outwit does need more to be effective in combat, but im guessing that is not what its for and the designers value what it does offer even if the community doesnt.
Nature based classes like ranger and druid though are core to the game because the themes are actually very popular. Designers knew both how popular these classes are both within thier customer base and in the target populations they are marketing toward.
Thaum is not as popular a concept.
A funny note though, it is is the esoteric class lol. Its themed on not being well known.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is not a bad class. An errata adding one line to hunt prey allowing it to shift to a new creature as when your prey dies would put the class where it should be.
Outwit does need more to be effective in combat, but im guessing that is not what its for and the designers value what it does offer even if the community doesnt.
Nature based classes like ranger and druid though are core to the game because the themes are actually very popular. Designers knew both how popular these classes are both within thier customer base and in the target populations they are marketing toward.Thaum is not as popular a concept.
A funny note though, it is is the esoteric class lol. Its themed on not being well known.
I'm not arguing the ranger is bad, just that Thaumaturge is better. I've had very positive experiences with rangers. They work fine. But they also miss some significant marks, and it's mostly around their nature themed stuff. They are the ultimate example of class feats covering too much design space, especially if you want to bring together all of the classic ranger elements. Spells, animal companions, combat feats, and glorified skill feats are all competing for the same resource pool. It's similar to the Outwit problem. To be meaningfully better than any other class at the ranger's iconic skills, it costs you significant combat tools. To costs them a skill feat, a skill increase, and a 6th level class feat just to have a chance to catch up when you track something with a head start. (Seriously, the track rules are rough.)
Does this prevent the class from being fun? No. But I think the class needed a glow up more than the barbarian, for example. And it still performs significantly better in some campaigns than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also said the ranger wasn't bad, in fact, I said the hate for rangers is a little overblown, but I found weird that in the remaster classes that didn't need changes received them while the ranger which is in need of a little push didn't receive anything. Literally the only thing that changed about the class was Crossbow Ace, everything else was left as is. I also don't think people here are arguing about "replace ranger with thaumaturge" but rather talk how the thaumaturge fills the thematic niche of the ranger much better than it. Most of the people that gravitate towards rangers nowadays do it because they want to play a Geralt of Rivia-type character, but that concept is much better executed with the thaumaturge than the ranger. Obviously nobody thinks the thaumaturge is more popular than the ranger or that it should replace it in PC1, but the point that a thaumaturge does what a ranger does but better stands.
I also said the ranger wasn't bad, in fact, I said the hate for rangers is a little overblown, but I found weird that in the remaster classes that didn't need changes received them while the ranger which is in need of a little push didn't receive anything. Literally the only thing that changed about the class was Crossbow Ace, everything else was left as is. I also don't think people here are arguing about "replace ranger with thaumaturge" but rather talk how the thaumaturge fills the thematic niche of the ranger much better than it. Most of the people that gravitate towards rangers nowadays do it because they want to play a Geralt of Rivia-type character, but that concept is much better executed with the thaumaturge than the ranger. Obviously nobody thinks the thaumaturge is more popular than the ranger or that it should replace it in PC1, but the point that a thaumaturge does what a ranger does but better stands.
I am confused by putting Geralt in the ranger bucket. Ive never seen him pick up a bow in the shows and rangers dont have the style of minor magic he uses or the use of alchemical monster goo.
You know in pf1 the mutagen fighter really felt like the witcher concept though.
Look at literally any 5e post asking on how to make Geralt. If people don't mention the blood hunter they likely mention the ranger.
Ah ok i see it.
So high perception on a martial class.
outwiit ranger for bonuses to tracking and knowing things about monsters.
would need to have some alchemical stuff and access to some cantrips too but can archtype into them.
Design Manager
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outwit does need more to be effective in combat, but im guessing that is not what its for and the designers value what it does offer even if the community doesnt.
It's worth noting here that "the community" is something most people don't actually have a very good read on. When a person says "the community" it's often, knowingly or not, shorthand for "the specific subsection of the community I pay the most attention to and which usually agrees with me." We have access to thousands upon thousands of character builds and tons of specific feedback from a variety of surveys and data sources. One of those bits of feedback is that all the hunter's edges (hunters' edge?) are almost equally popular in how often they're used and selected. There is a specific subset of the community that thinks Outwit is maybe undertuned from a combat perspective, but its total popularity is on par with any of the other hunters' edge when you widen your lens and look at what players are doing across community feedback derived from many thousands of data points as opposed to the trends in smaller and more insular groups that might not see engagement from more than a couple hundred individuals at the high end (and for a venue like the forums on this website, usually much lower.)
Literally the only thing that changed about the class was Crossbow Ace, everything else was left as is.
"Literally", of course, meaning "figuratively" in this case. Because the ranger also got an upgrade to Nature's Edge letting it work in all difficult terrain, a boost to their spell DC scaling allowing it to scale up to master now if they have warden spells, the adjustment to Crossbow Ace (alongside general related adjustments to crossbows), improvements to several warden spells that include things like better scaling or earlier access to certain effects, Deadly Aim is now a flourish instead of an open making it generally more flexible, the free action for your companion from Mature Animal Companion isn't specifically limited to Striding towards or Striking only your prey so it's more tactically flexible, the ranger's specialized companion now can be taken multiple times to gain multiple specializations, Warden's Reload was added an option, and Impossible Volley no longer has the flourish trait (limited use cases there, but it is still a change).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outwit does need more to be effective in combat, but im guessing that is not what its for and the designers value what it does offer even if the community doesnt.
It's worth noting here that "the community" is something most people don't actually have a very good read on. When a person says "the community" it's often, knowingly or not, shorthand for "the specific subsection of the community I pay the most attention to and which usually agrees with me." We have access to thousands upon thousands of character builds and tons of specific feedback from a variety of surveys and data sources. One of those bits of feedback is that all the hunter's edges (hunters' edge?) are almost equally popular in how often they're used and selected. There is a specific subset of the community that thinks Outwit is maybe undertuned from a combat perspective, but its total popularity is on par with any of the other hunters' edge when you widen your lens and look at what players are doing across community feedback derived from many thousands of data points as opposed to the trends in smaller and more insular groups that might not see engagement from more than a couple hundred individuals at the high end (and for a venue like the forums on this website, usually much lower.)
Your are right, I actually meant to say this community and in saying that mean the vocal members on these specific threads. I mean not that long ago I was someone who never posted on these threads but have played ttrpgs for decades. So I completely understand the point your making. there are a lot more people out there playing this game.
My actual opinion of the hunter's edge is being formed more so based on my players experience in my current campaign. They are playing a ranger with outwit and a arbalest. They chose it because the concept was appealing to them. They are a new player and are not looking at mechanics as much as is this cool to make as a character or does it fit what I see my character as.I see it as my responsibility to allow players opportunities to accomplish feats that test their skills and any skill is only as valuable (or providing moments players feel good about their characters) when the campaign allows there skills to come into play.