13

I'm GMing for a group where everyone (including myself) is entirely new to Pathfinder. We had our session 0 recently followed by a quick practice combat. The thing I noticed from that, plus a little theory crafting of building a low level character myself, is that people using ranged combat felt very underwhelming compared to melee weapon users.

  • They couldn't add any modifier to damage
  • They had far fewer feats upgrading them (particularly compared to dual wielders)
  • They had fewer "third action" options
  • Less ability to help out allies with things like flanking
  • Can't opportunity attack

Sure, for all that they have the advantage of being safer from getting damaged. But it didn't really feel like a worthwhile trade-off. Does this get better as you level up? Is it just something caused by inexperience? What options can/should you take to make ranged combat feel more interesting and valuable?

For context, my party had a rogue and a ranged fighter as ranged users, as well as a barbarian and a magus in melee, and a druid and sorcerer as casters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Bolt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I agree with you. I think it would be a lot more valuable if not for the fact that every attack that doesn't target you targets another party member. So while yes, you are protecting yourself, pathfinder is a team game and I don't see how it helps the team.

In my experience my party's flurry ranger often does less damage than their companion, which feels like it shouldn't be the case.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)

Pathfinder 2e General Discussion

2 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS