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
[-] LiquorFan@pathfinder.social 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think they are worse, they just do less damage. A lot of the value of ranged combat depends on the map layout, if there are places to take cover, choke points, difficult terrain. And also it requires coordination with the rest of the party to be very effective, if everyone grabs a ranged weapon they can shot at enemies while they get close, then switch to melee when they are in reach.

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

Pathfinder 2e General Discussion

15 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS