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.
I think for the rogue in particular they would be a good option as long as they have ways of triggering sneak attack like hiding behind cover. As a rogue a lot of your effectiveness comes from how you hit the enemy, not what you hit them with.
Yeah. I'm GMing some new players and I have a hard time getting my rogue to realize that there are a good number of ways to get a target flat-footed and deal sneak attack damage. I'm giving him as many suggestions as possible but it's not clicking for him yet.
Stop "suggesting" and start "telling" him. If you've pointed out, step-by-step, how to do the thing, and he still doesn't do it then that's on him. Otherwise do just that.
Those skill actions take some time to wrap your head around coming from most other systems