| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even pretend I care about much more than combat performance. I almost feel I should just put a disclaimer in all my posts saying, "I only care about combat performance metrics and if the ability doesn't perform well in some aspect of combat, then it's not something I'm too interested in."
Outwit doesn't perform well in combat, thus I view it as subpar.
Knowing some of what we now know about the barbarian, I'm a bit surprised the ranger didn't get a free-action Hunt Prey when they rolled initiative (or at least don't have that ability to my knowledge). It seems like a slam dunk for helping them get their routine going, while not being too overpowering whenever you face multiple enemies since you'd still need to spend actions to Hunt Prey again later.
Maybe it's because you can Hunt Prey as an exploration activity as well?
Hunt Prey is a free action (on initiative) with Favored Prey...which is a feat I haven't seen not even a single time despite seeing like 6-7 rangers in actual play and me myself having built like 3-4 of them too. I'm honestly surprised that this feat wasn't changed to be a free action (period) or at least allow you to take it multiple times or have a higher level version that applies to all monster types (you can't even choose all monster types with this feat, which is also weird, but I digress).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.)
By specific subset of the community you mean 90% of individuals in this community and maybe 75% of the much larger Reddit think Outwit is under done. I defended it on Reddit, but please don't confuse when people say "this is what you can do with it" for actually thinking Outwit is in any way balanced with the other Edges.
You are right in that what people play with and buy is objective reality for a company selling a game, rather than opinions on the net. Have you looked at the differential? Is the popularity of Flurry and Precision staying the same relative to Outwit? Is Outwit driving repeat business or is it just dissapointing customers? Is the implementation living up to the popularity of the concept? Do you have data that can tell you that?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 ...
Yes Natures Edge is a very nice upgrade to all rangers. Bumping Mature Animal Companion (Ranger) to level 6 though leaves it with a disadvantage to the Druid equivalent, but with probably a useful edge benefit. From the Commander playtest I suspect you might be moving some other Mature Animals to 6 in Player Core 2.
I was thinking a similar thing to Gortle. It would be dumb for me to say all those surveys you guys have at Paizo aren't good because that's clearly not the case, but I seriously doubt people that have seen or played either precision or flurry rangers have the same levels of satisfaction with either of those than with outwit. I know Michael said that outwit is as popular as the other two (thus, that its as selected a number of times equal or similar to the other edges) but I would want to know if people think if outwit is competent when compared to flurry or precision. Human fighter is probably the most selected ancestry + class combo, but that doesn't mean its the strongest (although in PF2e that's debatable).
I admit I was a bit hyperbolic in my original statement though. There was more stuff than just Crossbow Ace that changed in the class, though I feel the most notable one is Crossbow Ace though (that and warden spells). I also want to take this opportunity to say something I said like a bizillion comments ago (I don't blame anyone for not reading or remember I said that at this point) that I don't think the ranger is bad class or that it underperforms, though I think it lacks a certain "oomph" and from its three subclasses I think outwit is the worse one by far and, when compared to the other two, is bad, even in the context in which it would work better.
Design Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
By specific subset of the community you mean 90% of individuals in this community and maybe 75% of the much larger Reddit think Outwit is under done.
Those are completely made up and entirely hyperbolic numbers. Most ranger threads on the Reddit don't even have 5% community engagement, and they're not universally negative. Even in this much smaller and generally more critical community those numbers don't wash with actual post engagements from unique posters.
You are right in that what people play with and buy is objective reality for a company selling a game, rather than opinions on the net. Have you looked at the differential? Is the popularity of Flurry and Precision staying the same relative to Outwit? Is Outwit driving repeat business or is it just dissapointing customers? Is the implementation living up to the popularity of the concept? Do you have data that can tell you that?
What we can see is that ranger is one of the more popular classes in the game and Outwit is showing up in builds about as often as Flurry or Precision.
Those numbers hold pretty consistent month after month as the game's total player base, engagement, and rulebook sales and subscriptions continue to grow, so we can infer pretty safely that it's not discouraging business and the edge isn't decreasing in popularity. There's even some indicators that it actually becomes more appealing to players the more familiar they become with the system (as its actually more popular and widely used now than it was in some earlier data metrics.)
And note that none of what I'm saying here is a value judgement one way or another on whether Outwit is good or bad, or even if ranger is good or bad; I haven't made any statements in that regard because it's entirely subjective.
The main thrust of my original post was to note that there were a lot of indefensible or incorrect statements being made. That "literally" only one change had been made to the ranger (untrue) or that "the community" felt a certain way (unproven and statistically unlikely based on the actual data available.)
By specific subset of the community you mean 90% of individuals in this community and maybe 75% of the much larger Reddit think Outwit is under done.Those are completely made up and entirely hyperbolic numbers.
I prefer the term eye balled but that they were estimates was obvious. Based on looking at the larger threads and judging the positivity of the comments. Redit stats are not generally available to the public. View counts have been disabled for years.
Not universally negative is a very low bar.
There's even some indicators that it actually becomes more appealing to players the more familiar they become with the system (as its actually more popular and widely used now than it was in some earlier data metrics.)
I'm glad you have looked at the best available data. I can't add anything beyond my own experiences so I will concede the space to you.
The main thrust of my original post was to note that there were a lot of indefensible or incorrect statements being made. That "literally"
The misuse of literally is so common that it is now accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary. When I notice it, it bugs me too.
No offense, but as a data analyst it's really, really irksome to see people ask these kind of obvious questions when presented with survey results. I didn't spend years of my life studying and working in the sector to present a report that can be undone by a bunch of questions by someone who isn't even looking at my dataset.
You are right in that what people play with and buy is objective reality for a company selling a game, rather than opinions on the net. Have you looked at the differential? Is the popularity of Flurry and Precision staying the same relative to Outwit? Is Outwit driving repeat business or is it just dissapointing customers? Is the implementation living up to the popularity of the concept? Do you have data that can tell you that?
Asking specific questions to the guy who has the data is reasonable. Especially when his assertions are at odds with the experience of a majority of the people on the forums who care to comment.
Seriously, they already have accounted for this. That's their job! The Design Manager isn't going to be posting first cut, zero ground sensing data in public!
And here you have made my point for me. You, a self professed professional data analyst have misquoted me. I never asked for the data to be published, just if he had supporting data. Why would I ever trust an analysis without asking for the reason for the conclusions.
In an investigation, details matter.
|
Design Manager
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The missuse of literally is so common that it is now accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary. When I notice it, it bugs me too.
The sentence I replied to was-
"Literally the only thing that changed about the class was Crossbow Ace, everything else was left as is."
Even with a misuse of "literally" that's clearly an incorrect and untrue statement.
As to the rest of the responses-
There's over 117k subscribers on the most active PF2 subReddit. You'll struggle to find any threads on the ranger that have interactions from even a fraction of a percent of that number.
The threads and posts about the ranger also have a pretty standard spread of negative, neutral, and positive inclinations, and general upvoting of positive comments aligns towards at least counterbalancing unique negative comments (and often you'll find that some of the highest upvoted comments in a negatively skewed thread are counters to the negative assertion that often have more upvotes than the main thread.) The internet in general and gaming forums in particular skew heavily towards negative commentary, so a net positive or even a net neutral in such forums is often indicative of an overall positive reception.
More to the point, there are enough visible numbers there to know what the community size is and what the general engagement is, and those make it clear that numbers like "90%" or "75%" in regards to the community inclinations aren't eyeballs or estimates; even going off readily available public data there's nothing to remotely support such a claim.
Normally, I don't bother getting involved in a thread like this because various segments of the community can and should make their own evaluations and decisions. Our job is generally to watch those conversations and not get overly involved so we can make wise and profitable decisions about how to steer our own standards and content for maximum enjoyment across the widest possible audience.
The reason I chimed in here was because this thread had reached a point of negativity cycling where active disinformation that went beyond the realm of opinion was being spread, to make it clear that that was disinformation.
As far as the community comment I made. It was lazy.
Instead providing a statement that was more accurate with some specificity I casually said community.
I don't mind that you corrected me, but disinformation nor negativity even was not my intention.
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the community comment I made. It was lazy.
Instead providing a statement that was more accurate with some specificity I casually said community.
I don't mind that you corrected me, but disinformation nor negativity even was not my intention.
You're fine and it happens. I don't think anyone had malicious intentions, but forum speak has a tendency to spiral into hyperbole, over-generalization, etc.
That's to be expected but when you start to have a cluster of that piling up in close proximity on a forum we host, I think clarifying / addressing notable inaccuracies is fair and proper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd add that threads on the subreddit in general only engage a tiny percentage of its listed number of members, even the most popular posts, and its number of concurrent online users consistently tends to be about 0.1% of its member count. With that said, as someone who frequently visits the subreddit, I've rarely seen much significant criticism of the Ranger, and in fact much of the discussion that happens around the class is that they're "done right" compared to D&D 5e's take. Outwit certainly seems to be the least popular subclass, but that's unsurprising given that it's the hunter's edge that has the least direct impact on white-room damage calculations, which tend to be overly present in online discussion.
On the topic of gameplay data, I have always wondered how you guys/Paizo go about sourcing data? More specifically, which of the commonly known tools & VTTs feed you guys data, and how that data gets sanity checked to be valid.
While I'm optimistic that community resources (like the Pathbuilder guy) would love to work something out where they do most of the work so players can self-report data, that kind of thing is never automatic, and does require some dev work to accomplish.
For Pathbuilder, that work would likely include a new way to distinguish built characters that are for reference/theory from those who have been actually played.
I forget which game it was, but I half remember another dev team publishing a big article on their player data years ago. The memorable part was how differently players from various input sources, and even geographical locations, played from one another.
Basically, having multiple pools lets devs characterize the pools via contrast, because all data is biased. I think it goes without saying that assuming talk on reddit/these forums is representative of the "overall playerbase" would cause oversights.
While each pool of players is biased in their own way, they also can have their own separate insights that other pools never notice. Getting access to multiple data sets is key to being able to separate unhelpful pool/community bias from the genuine design pain-points commonly used/abused by that pool of players.
Having a diverse variety of input sources can give devs/analysts multiple different lenses to look at their data based on how the sub-sets of players differ from one another.
Even smaller VTTs can be super worth the investment to court for their data. As long as the size of that data gets big enough to get over the noise threshold and holds up to sanity checks, seeing the cultural differences in that group can grant meaningful insight.
-------
Personally, I am most curious about how PFS data differs due to how restrictive it is; sooo many player decisions change when budgets are tight (no FA), and when Feat-crippling rules oversights/catches are enforced.
I think the key points for why no free Hunt Prey in light of free Rage are:
The ranger can circumstantially get free Hunt Prey via doing ranger things. There really isn't such for the barbarian
Hunt Prey keeps getting used throughout the encounter and the ranger is budgeted for it via their two-Strike actions that require a hunted prey and stuff like Monster Hunter. Meanwhile Rage is budgeted like a stance for actions - which is to say, not at all, they expect it to always be on.
Rangers don't actually have to attack their Hunted Prey to be optimal. The first Strike for Flurry and subsequent Strikes for Precision don't benefit from it at all, so there's actual choices to make regarding expected kills and switching prey. Rage, well, you delay it for as long as you have non-Strike things to do, then pop it. Not much to say here.
Because Hunt Prey gives benefits out of combat, waving the action cost in combat might create incentives for weird actions e.g. a Monster Hunter ranger who...
The other key issue is that Rangers do get a free Hunt Prey start of turn.... at level 19, so moving that to lower levels or a feat mean they need to give Rangers something else at 19 instead.
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
Oh! That's... actually a really big deal for some builds. Makes Ranger the most powerful animal companion overall, if I'm reading/remembering right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The threads and posts about the ranger also have a pretty standard spread of negative, neutral, and positive inclinations, and general upvoting of positive comments aligns towards at least counterbalancing unique negative comments (and often you'll find that some of the highest upvoted comments in a negatively skewed thread are counters to the negative assertion that often have more upvotes than the main thread.) The internet in general and gaming forums in particular skew heavily towards negative commentary, so a net positive or even a net neutral in such forums is often indicative of an overall positive reception.
It's also worth noting that it shouldn't be surprising at all that players that consistently overvalue damage will... continually undervalue a subclass that trades away some damage for a lot of other utility.
I think on an objective level, Outwit Ranger performs pretty evenly with other Rangers, landing a little ahead or behind them depending on the specifics of what the rest of your party looks like.
I mean they actually can.
Playing a ranger really depends on a GM realizing how they play.
Before the party enters a the cave or a building or a whatever for example, the ranger says they want to seek for signs of anything coming or going into the whatever. GM should give them something here on a successful roll if there are inhabitants that come and go. Player might ask if they can distinguish multiple tracks and says I want to hunt prey and start tracking one that seems like its going into the whatever.
There is very little reason for a party with a ranger to just walk in without hunting something that can be tracked.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.
I mean they actually can.
Playing a ranger really depends on a GM realizing how they play.
Before the party enters a the cave or a building or a whatever for example, the ranger says they want to seek for signs of anything coming or going into the whatever. GM should give them something here on a successful roll if there are inhabitants that come and go. Player might ask if they can distinguish multiple tracks and says I want to hunt prey and start tracking one that seems like its going into the whatever.
There is very little reason for a party with a ranger to just walk in without hunting something that can be tracked.
...and once you get a GM who will work with you on that, investigators get a fair bit more effective too.
Not much help on ambushes, though.
I mean they actually can.
Playing a ranger really depends on a GM realizing how they play.
Before the party enters a the cave or a building or a whatever for example, the ranger says they want to seek for signs of anything coming or going into the whatever. GM should give them something here on a successful roll if there are inhabitants that come and go. Player might ask if they can distinguish multiple tracks and says I want to hunt prey and start tracking one that seems like its going into the whatever.
There is very little reason for a party with a ranger to just walk in without hunting something that can be tracked....and once you get a GM who will work with you on that, investigators get a fair bit more effective too.
Not much help on ambushes, though.
Right. I mean its not as if every GM has played every class in every way they can be played. We are all just running games as we can best conceive them. Its one of the reasons i post threads about GMing ideas. I hope that they get ideas and perspectives from a lot of others here to benefit all of us reading these threads.
I learn new ways of looking at an element of the game by just hearing everyone here out.
My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.
Well it doesn't need to stack with Intimidating Prowess for it to be good? It can also just mean you don't pick Intimidating Prowess, which is a pretty good thing because it means you can just choose not to tax yourself to get +3 Str for that bonus.
I also don't understand dismissing Outwit as "nothing is stopping you from rolling to Demoralize" as other Rangers? Nothing stops Outwit Rangers from dealing damage either, they just deal 1d8 less of it than Precision ones and have lower followup accuracy than Flurry. No one said Precision/Flurry Rangers don't have functional skill actions, only that Outwit is substantially better at them. Not to mention you ignored all the other bonuses they get that aren't to Demoralize checks (Feint, Hide, Recall Knowledge, and AC).
My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.Well it doesn't need to stack with Intimidating Prowess for it to be good? It can also just mean you don't pick Intimidating Prowess, which is a pretty good thing because it means you can just choose not to tax yourself to get +3 Str for that bonus.
I also don't understand dismissing Outwit as "nothing is stopping you from rolling to Demoralize" as other Rangers? Nothing stops Outwit Rangers from dealing damage either, they just deal 1d8 less of it than Precision ones and have lower followup accuracy than Flurry. No one said Precision/Flurry Rangers don't have functional skill actions, only that Outwit is substantially better at them. Not to mention you ignored all the other bonuses they get that aren't to Demoralize checks (Feint, Hide, Recall Knowledge, and AC).
I would hardly call a tax having a +3 Str with a martial, more so when you were likely going to have it anyways even as a Dex ranger. I also find "but then you can avoid Intimidating Prowess to take something else" as something that's more bad than good, since I hardly know what to do with my skill feats already to be forced into avoiding the obvious "most haves" of each skill to take something I know I won't even remember I have. Luckily, Intimidation is one of those skills which has really good skill feats overall, so its not that big of a deal in the long run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if there is a correlation between how much a player values stealth in combat and how effective an outwit Ranger appeals to that player.
Like I see can you see?, eerie environs, and camouflage, and I see an outwit ranger sniper who never is going to get attacked in natural settings, and is pretty much better off than having a 4th level invisibility in natural environments. Sure it doesn’t stack with cover bonuses to stealth, but your character doesn’t need cover to hide. In early levels, you can use Items like smoke balls and running reload to frustrate an enemy like no one else.
I would hardly call a tax having a +3 Str with a martial, more so when you were likely going to have it anyways even as a Dex ranger.My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.Well it doesn't need to stack with Intimidating Prowess for it to be good? It can also just mean you don't pick Intimidating Prowess, which is a pretty good thing because it means you can just choose not to tax yourself to get +3 Str for that bonus.
I also don't understand dismissing Outwit as "nothing is stopping you from rolling to Demoralize" as other Rangers? Nothing stops Outwit Rangers from dealing damage either, they just deal 1d8 less of it than Precision ones and have lower followup accuracy than Flurry. No one said Precision/Flurry Rangers don't have functional skill actions, only that Outwit is substantially better at them. Not to mention you ignored all the other bonuses they get that aren't to Demoralize checks (Feint, Hide, Recall Knowledge, and AC).
Tax was perhaps a harsh phrasing but +3 Str isn’t free (outside of being a Str-based Ranger obviously). Starting with +4 Dex and +3 Str as a ranged Ranger means you only have a +1 to distribute for all your other stats which is a genuine downside. Even to a Flurry or Precision Ranger that’d be a genuine cost (since that Str is effectively giving you +1 extra damage at the cost of Initiative/HP/Saves), and to a Ranger whose whole subclass is designed around using Dex + Int + Charisma, it’s a huge cost. An Outwit Ranger likely wants a spread that looks more like +4 Dex / +2 Cha / +2 Int (or go down a bit on the utility stats and up on Saves/HP/Initiative).
I also find "but then you can avoid Intimidating Prowess to take something else" as something that's more bad than good, since I hardly know what to do with my skill feats already to be forced into avoiding the obvious "most haves" of each skill to take something I know I won't even remember I have. Luckily, Intimidation is one of those skills which has really good skill feats overall, so its not that big of a deal in the long run.
I mean, to an Outwit Ranger the obvious answer is always Additional Lore. If you’re ever unsure what to do with a Skill Feat during a campaign, select Lore: <creature type / locale that fits the campaign you’re in> and you’re good.
Beyond that there are plenty of Skill Feats to pick as an Outwit Ranger. Terrain Stalker, Quiet Allies, Intimidating Glare (it’s basically just no-prereq Prowess for Outwit), Foil Senses, etc are all good picks for an Outwit Ranger. Add a couple uses of Additional Lore and you’re golden.
Is Additional Lore the answer though? At 10th level if you take Master Monster Hunter (and why wouldn't you as an outwit) it becomes an obsolete feat that you have to retrain. It is the end of the world? Not really, but this idea that I know I'll have to retrain stuff later down the line being kinda the "inteded" way for a class to work to me is bad design and is something nothing else in the system requires you to do.
Well additional lore in a very useful and specific monster type is better than master monster hunter unless you have completely tanked Int, and if the campaign allows time for it or has ways to make retraining faster, constantly retraining Additional lore into the monster type you expect the most of next is a strong way to play the game anyway.
Is Additional Lore the answer though? At 10th level if you take Master Monster Hunter (and why wouldn't you as an outwit) it becomes an obsolete feat that you have to retrain. It is the end of the world? Not really, but this idea that I know I'll have to retrain stuff later down the line being kinda the "inteded" way for a class to work to me is bad design and is something nothing else in the system requires you to do.
1. You don’t need to retrain Additional Lores away at all once you get MMH. Lores still benefit from reduced DCs, and Lores scale off of Int which has likely been the more useful stat for Recall Knowledge than Wis for levels 1-9 for you anyways. If you wish to retrain those away that’s fine of course, but it’s not required of you at all.
2. Additional Lore was just one example I gave because someone said it’s hard to pick Skill Feats on an Outwit Ranger. You can definitely get away with simply never picking Additional Lore and just picking the relevant skill trainings via your skill increases instead, so this isn’t something the system “requires” of you at all, nor is it bad design to make Skill Feats that reward a player for engaging with the background and setting of a campaign.3. Like Unicore said, having Additional Lores is just a strong way to build any Recall Knowledge user so you were already heavily incentivized to be doing it, with or without Outwit’s features. Like, my Wizard also uses Additional Lore to keep her Recall Knowledge useful. So this isn’t Outwit-specific at all, pretty much any RK user that’s not a Thaumaturge should be considering this.
I have to say that I assumed MMH targeted the lowest DC like a thaumaturge would with esoteric lore (debatable, but I think most people assume this is the case) so I guess Additional Lore isn't a bad idea. However, what's exactly the problem of having both outwit and Intimidating Prowess stack? Intimidating Prowess is already a feat that everyone can take and that they are likely going to take if they intend to use the demoralize action, so it would make sense for outwit which encourages that playstyle to allow you to use one of the most common skill feats for that skill, though it instead effectively prohibits that option for some reason. Let's say somehow the bonus from outwit didn't stack with Confabulator or Shadow Mark, what would be the reason to justify that? This kinda makes me realize a character with Intimidating Prowess, Confabulator, and Shadow Mark is effectively playing an outwit lol (at least if they don't intent to feint).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.Well it doesn't need to stack with Intimidating Prowess for it to be good? It can also just mean you don't pick Intimidating Prowess, which is a pretty good thing because it means you can just choose not to tax yourself to get +3 Str for that bonus.
I also don't understand dismissing Outwit as "nothing is stopping you from rolling to Demoralize" as other Rangers? Nothing stops Outwit Rangers from dealing damage either, they just deal 1d8 less of it than Precision ones and have lower followup accuracy than Flurry. No one said Precision/Flurry Rangers don't have functional skill actions, only that Outwit is substantially better at them. Not to mention you ignored all the other bonuses they get that aren't to Demoralize checks (Feint, Hide, Recall Knowledge, and AC).
You kinda have to cut the benefits of Outwit in half because the charisma skill actions and Recall Knowledge are mutually exclusive. You're just not raising Charisma and Intelligence on a martial and coming out of it with an effective character. If you're starting at 10th level and can build with Master Monster Hunter in mind then I can see the vision a bit better - Outwit starting with that feat would go a long way to justifying it in my eyes though I would still be skeptical. You're still worse at being the knowledge monkey than a Thaumaturge or Investigator would be.
The difference between the benefits of Precision/Flurry vs Outwit is that having more damage progresses the fight. Your support has to be pretty good to justify not doing damage, which most support classes do perfectly well but I'm not convinced the Outwit Ranger does. A Bard does less damage than a Precision Ranger because the Bard is casting Courageous Anthem and Synesthesia. What does the Outwit Ranger DO that isn't done by anyone else with much less significant investment of character resources? Is the Outwit Ranger even the best support Ranger when flurry has such strong synergy with maneuvers?
My issue with Outwit is that it doesn't actually give you more utility, it just makes you more likely to succeed at utility that any class can do. There's nothing stopping you from rolling to Demoralize as a Precision ranger, and in that specific case Outwit isn't even giving an advantage since the bonus doesn't stack with Intimidating Prowess.Well it doesn't need to stack with Intimidating Prowess for it to be good? It can also just mean you don't pick Intimidating Prowess, which is a pretty good thing because it means you can just choose not to tax yourself to get +3 Str for that bonus.
I also don't understand dismissing Outwit as "nothing is stopping you from rolling to Demoralize" as other Rangers? Nothing stops Outwit Rangers from dealing damage either, they just deal 1d8 less of it than Precision ones and have lower followup accuracy than Flurry. No one said Precision/Flurry Rangers don't have functional skill actions, only that Outwit is substantially better at them. Not to mention you ignored all the other bonuses they get that aren't to Demoralize checks (Feint, Hide, Recall Knowledge, and AC).
You kinda have to cut the benefits of Outwit in half because the charisma skill actions and Recall Knowledge are mutually exclusive. You're just not raising Charisma and Intelligence on a martial and coming out of it with an effective character. If you're starting at 10th level and can build with Master Monster Hunter in mind then I can see the vision a bit better - Outwit starting with that feat would go a long way to justifying it in my eyes though I would still be skeptical. You're still worse at being the knowledge monkey than a Thaumaturge or Investigator would be.
The difference between the benefits of Precision/Flurry vs Outwit is that having more damage progresses the fight. Your support has to be pretty good to justify not doing damage, which most support classes do perfectly well but I'm not convinced the Outwit Ranger...
outwit rangers are not just picked for what they do in a fight but what they do leading up to one.
The outwit ranger will find their prey as well as other rangers, but they will be better at going unnoticed and setting up traps, poisoning food, tricking their prey into giving up a secret, finding their preys weakness maybe even before they ever fight because they've already identified what they are from their tracks.Outwit can go ranged with an arbalest and ignore str, pick up an animal companion that does want that +1 ac, stay hidden and far sniping from up to 220ft away while moving an animal companion into the fray. If something starts coming their way create a diversion and sneak to another spot. Any time a foe wastes chasing the ranger are wasted actions but more likely they will get to fire away without attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you said there could be done by any ranger, with the only difference that the outwit does it a little better, which is in some cases debatable (see the Intimidating Prowess discussion we had earlier). That's the thing, being good at these things but having 0 combat benefits is IMO worse than being a little worse at these things but actually capable in combat. Precision is a better sniper because that bolt is going to hurt for sure and flurry not only benefits way more from those ranger feats that involve MAP but also be one of the best users of Athletics actions in the system. If the Monster Hunter / Monster Warden feats were a little more reliable I think outwit could be really solid as a more support-oriented subclass, but as is I feel it doesn't do anytying that I couldn't do with any of the other edges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the fact that Outwit is circumstance bonuses is kind of a bummer.
Like, imagine if a fighter's +2 to hit was a status bonus so they just didn't benefit from having a bard in the party?
Circumstance bonuses are somewhat less common, but running into issues with Aid checks and other abilities kind of undermines the core advantage of the class (same problem their AC bonus gives tbh).
Regarding damage: Ironically I feel like the people most overvaluing damage here are the ones defending Outwit. Like someone will list several reasons why they dislike the edge and the response will be "oh well of course if you only care about DPR. . ." and actively disregarding other criticisms.
The fact that Outwit gives you no damage modifiers, and that Outwit is one of the only instances of a martial outright losing their DPR gimmick in the game is notable but far from the only issue people have brought up.
One factor I haven't seen mentioned (outside a superbidi thread from years ago) is that there's some GM variation that can also effect your power quite a bit. The wording on Outwit is sort of awkward about who your bonuses apply to. Applying the stealth bonus generically vs only against your prey for instance can alter the power of that bonus a lot, and there's credible reasons to run it either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidating prowess is only a +1 bonus to demoralize and coerce checks, and requires a STR of +3. Outwit is +2 to all intimidation checks (so includes scare to death and social skill challenges that are neither demoralize or coerce), and doesn’t require boosting STR and CHA. By the time a Ranger that starts with a +3 CHA can get a +2 with intimidating prowess (having sunk 3 additional boosts into STR), the outwit Ranger is 2 levels away from having an absurd +4 to all intimidation checks, including not only those scare to death checks but the intimidation DC for the for save. All with having 6 additional attribute boosts to an attribute you don’t need to invest in at all if you are using a crossbow or firearm. Also, you have a skill feat to put elsewhere.
Intimidating prowess is not anywhere close.
It does get up to +2 circumstance bonus earlier than Outwit hits +4. Intimidating Prowess is limited to Coerce or Demoralize.
Whereas Outwit works on every intimidate check including Scare to Death.
It's too niche for me to consider it a quality edge. You could build an interesting Outwit ranger if you liked doing what they do well. You won't be a top damage dealer, but you'd be great a skill-based intimidate and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidating prowess is only a +1 bonus to demoralize and coerce checks, and requires a STR of +3. Outwit is +2 to all intimidation checks (so includes scare to death and social skill challenges that are neither demoralize or coerce), and doesn’t require boosting STR and CHA. By the time a Ranger that starts with a +3 CHA can get a +2 with intimidating prowess (having sunk 3 additional boosts into STR), the outwit Ranger is 2 levels away from having an absurd +4 to all intimidation checks, including not only those scare to death checks but the intimidation DC for the for save. All with having 6 additional attribute boosts to an attribute you don’t need to invest in at all if you are using a crossbow or firearm. Also, you have a skill feat to put elsewhere.
Intimidating prowess is not anywhere close.
Pretty much this.
It feels like the hyperfocus on Intimidating Prowess in this discussion is coming from a place of someone already have a different Ranger they built that had good Str and decent Cha and could pick up that Feat for free, and then they’re trying to just change the character’s Edge to Outwit and change nothing else about the character.
Like the fact is that if you compare a Precision Ranger who has, say, +4 Dex, +3 Str, +1 Cha, +1 Wis at level 1 versus a Flurry Ranger who has +4 Dex, +2 Cha, +2 Int, +1 Wis at level 1, the Outwit Ranger has a slightly better Demoralize, significantly better Feint/Hide and Recall Knowledge, needed one less Skill Feat to do it, and won’t need to keep investing into Str at higher levels (leaving them free to up Saves and/or HP instead). It is a sizeable advantage that you get by trading off some damage.
Regarding damage: Ironically I feel like the people most overvaluing damage here are the ones defending Outwit. Like someone will list several reasons why they dislike the edge and the response will be "oh well of course if you only care about DPR. . ." and actively disregarding other criticisms.
This isn’t a fair assessment at all because damn near 100% of all discussions I’ve seen criticizing the Outwit Ranger solely focus on DPR. This is in fact the first time I’ve seen someone criticize the Circumstance bonus typing on the Outwit Ranger and even that has an implied component of hyperfocusing on damage on it. If you think Intimidating Prowess is “free” it’s because you maxed out Strength to focus on damage (one of the comments earlier explicitly said even bow Rangers should always max out their Str), and if you think the +2 circumstance to Demoralize overrides all the benefits Outwit provides, it means you think all the non-Demoralize Skill Actions don’t add up to nearly as much benefit as Demoralize alone which… doesn’t make sense without being hyperfocused on DPR.
Like to me the strongest possible turn 1 from an Outwit Ranger is (start having used Hunt Prey pre combat) Demoralize enemy -> Recall Knowledge enemy -> tell the Wizard what Save to target -> Hunter Shot the enemy. You did a nice bit of damage and potentially gave the Wizard somewhere between a +3 and +7 to their Spell Save DC. That’s the big strength of Outwit Ranger, and ignoring it does require overvaluing your personal damage to some extent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One factor I haven't seen mentioned (outside a superbidi thread from years ago) is that there's some GM variation that can also effect your power quite a bit. The wording on Outwit is sort of awkward about who your bonuses apply to. Applying the stealth bonus generically vs only against your prey for instance can alter the power of that bonus a lot, and there's credible reasons to run it either way.
:D
Someone remembers that!
Also, that's what I apply for Outwit Rangers I DM in PFS. Because I think it's fair.
And the concept of a Stealth bonus that applies to only a single opponent that you need to detect before rolling your Stealth check sounds way "too bad to be true" to me.
I also think someone can find value in the Outwit bonuses if this someone is looking for a well rounded character. Many players (me included) focus on skills they're good at. And as being good in Stealth, Deception, Intimidation and RK skills simultaneously is impossible, we devalue the skill bonus from Outwit. But if you play in a game where everyone gets to roll for a bit of everything (and if the GM is not too annoying about when you can gain the circumstance bonuses to skills) then it can see value. Like in PFS if you play with (a) mostly nice GM(s).
But if you play in a game where everyone gets to roll for a bit of everything (and if the GM is not too annoying about when you can gain the circumstance bonuses to skills) then it can see value. Like in PFS if you play with (a) mostly nice GM(s).
Oooh, yeah. PFS and a reasonably permissive GM suddenly makes Outwit kind of a big deal.