,and is there any hope for them? You see I woud like to play one, but I feel as though I will be overshadowed by my more powerful teammates.Like an aquaman in a team of SuperMen.
They seem fine to me and i have 2 players that love em.
My current campaign has a ranger as the main warrior in the party and he's not showing any signs of being underpowered. In fact, he's quite the bruiser.
My current campaign has a ranger as the main warrior in the party and he's not showing any signs of being underpowered. In fact, he's quite the bruiser.
Is he using the two weapons fighting style?
Witnessing the Ranger in my party lay utter smackdown on the undead with +4 to hit and +4 to damage from favored enemy has rather convinced me.
Somewhat narrow choices of course, but Rangers now get half as many bonus feats as Fighters do, plus other class features, spells, a good reflex save, and 4 more skill points per level.
Take Ranger - I'm sure you'll love it.
Our groups opinion (5th level playtest) (including the guy playing the ranger) was the bonus being to hit and damage was too powerful.
My current campaign has a ranger as the main warrior in the party and he's not showing any signs of being underpowered. In fact, he's quite the bruiser.Is he using the two weapons fighting style?
Yes. However, he alternates between two weapon (paired handaxes) and a two-handed style (spear, usually in conjunction with the power attack feat). His favored enemies are humans and elves. He's been able to use his favored enemy bonuses on a vast majority of the opponents in the adventure path thus far.
That is so good to hear, I am one of those guys who creates characters based on my minis. I have this ranger that has been calling to me for two maybe three years, and this may be the first time i use him. thanks for the input. As far as gaming goes make mine PATHFINDER!
|
I actually enjoy playing rangers and think the Pathfinder version is fantastic! I never can quite figure out why there continues to be this feeling that rangers are under powered ...
Pathfinder did a few brilliant things with the ranger, such as giving them both favored enemy AND favored terrain, allowing some choices of feats at each stage in the two weapon paths etc.
In fact, I just started playing in a new Pathfinder campaign (Curse of the Crimson Throne) using the Pathfinder RPG rules and I'm playing a ranger (a ranger/rogue actually) and I really like it. The class feels good and he's not under powered at all. He's actually pretty versitile and a good combatant. I'm taking him down the archer path, but he actuall did very well in a few up close combats using his long sword.
Rangers rock! Pathfinder rangers REALLY rock!
I have yet to find folks to play this but I look at the ranger class and judge the rest of the system by it. Since I started playing the game in the Forgotten Realms in 2nd Ed. I have only played rangers with one time in Planescape playing an Aasimar Paladin and a Half-Elven Ranger/Druid of Mielkki as the only exceptions to this. Pathfinder is what 4E should have been. In short they made the Ranger even better. The choices for bonus feats for the two styles was brilliant! Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy was terrific! And thank the Gods they kept the spell casting ability! And if you go with the option of being able to share your Favored Enemy bonuses with other party members instead of an animal companion the ranger makes for quite the team player. Not underpowered, I can see where some might think the class overpowered but I think this is the best version of the ranger class I've seen and I thought AED did a neat overhaul in their Mercenaries book...
my only compliant is currently the Ranger is still stuck with subpar, craptastic spells choices, since all the good Ranger spells are closed content. I really hope Paizo somehow fixes this soon.
my only compliant is currently the Ranger is still stuck with subpar, craptastic spells choices, since all the good Ranger spells are closed content. I really hope Paizo somehow fixes this soon.
What stops you from using the WotC books? Spell Compendium alone has fantastic spells for the Ranger.
any DM who only wants to use Pathfinder books? my current game, where i play a Ranger, is limited to Alpha, and the PHB. Therefore i am stuck with the above sucktacular spell list.
I never liked spells for Rangers myself
Still really weak. Not Fighter levels of bad but still really underpowered, but at least its not the Paladin, Monk, or the aforementioned Fighter.
|
|
I can't really speak to the spell list, since I also have never liked the idea of Rangers casting spells (it just never really fit into my concept of what the ranger is)
As I said before though, I'm a big fan of the Pathfinder ranger ... Paizo has really gotten this class much closer to being perfect.
There's alwats room for improvement and tweaking of course ;)
The Pathfinder ranger is, unsurprisingly, very solid at killing his chosen enemies- if not over powered.
Against "others" he's relatively craptastic.
Thats always been the tradeoff with the Ranger- trying to predict the future and figure out what he'll be fighting later on, so his bonuses will apply.
Nothing sucks worse than taking Undead as a favored enemy, 2 levels before the DM hi-jacks the campaign off to a devil/demon fest in the outer planes.
-S
Maybe so. Or possibly with a light-armor Fighter using cross-class stealth. Going to have to run the numbers taking AB figures into account.
Works better with a rogue. :)
You do have to add the favored terrain bonuses to stealth in.
I am not an avid poster (or a poster at all), but I read these forums frequently. I have this to say about the ranger: he is the quintessential combatant. Awesome BAB and good skill points. To that, I must add that no one has gotten the class right. Pathfinder has done a good job, but I agree with some of you that the Ranger should not be a caster, and that Favored Enemy is stoic and largely unuseful.
I personally think the Ranger should be designed like the Pathfinder Rogue, where you get to choose your abilities. I have been working this over for years - litteraly, and I think I have a design that works. I will say this, a lot of the material is from other published works and I do not want to get into trouble for posting. In fact I have no idea if I would get into trouble for posting it, nor do I know how to post a file.
I sincerely hopes that someone replies, and helps this fool out.
And if I must have a post name, I will go by Bob the three legged cat...
And I want Pathfinder/Paizo to consider it for the final version! Help me get this out there / to them!
|
I am not an avid poster (or a poster at all), but I read these forums frequently. I have this to say about the ranger: he is the quintessential combatant. Awesome BAB and good skill points. To that, I must add that no one has gotten the class right. Pathfinder has done a good job, but I agree with some of you that the Ranger should not be a caster, and that Favored Enemy is stoic and largely unuseful.
I agree that the Ranger should not be a caster. However, I disagree that Favored Enemy should be done away with. This and the combat style is what has always attracted my to the ranger class. This is especially true when use it to flesh out your character's background and personality. Why does your character study how to kill giants or kobalds, or gnolls?
I like the PFRPG ranger very much.
Btw there is an option in Complete champion for a spellles ranger.
Use it if you like........
The wildlander from Midnight is what I based my home brew ranger on. The versatility is fantastic and it does not "do away with" favored enemy, it simply modified it to make it more useful. I am talking about the combination of master hunter and hunter's strike ability.
I did look-up the midnight ranger.
He does reaaly rock the boat.
Thanks for the tip :)
We have a party of 7 characters in the Rise of the Rulelord AP.
One of these is a pure Ranger using two weapons and a Second is a Cleric with a few levels of Ranger using a bow.
So far they seem on par power wise with MOST of the rest of the group, especially as their favourite enemies are the main antagonists in AP3 and AP4.
What we have noticed is that they pale next to the Fighter in Damage output, even the Barbarian is struggling to keep up with the fighter for pure smack down.
To me it seems that all the classes are pretty well balanced now, but the fighter is slightly more powerful than all of them when using just the core rules.
|
I think the Pathfinder ranger is awesome, although I've always disliked the 'two weapon fighting' thing which is a direct rip of drizzt I had hoped someone would ditch it in favor of something more interesting. And I've never much cared for the spellcasting thing, which again, is a nod to Drizzt and his innate powers which in the books quite pointedly if one looks hard enough is why WOTC turned the ranger into a twin sword wielding faerie fire tossing.. er.. fighter. cause lets face it, even if you're gonna groan about Drizzt, you have to admit when you first saw it, it was fraking cool.
but, how paizo's made the current version of the ranger greatly lends itself rather easily to the Horizon Walker PRC out of the DMG 3.5, which I intend on taking my Half Orc ranger to after I do 3 levels of the Half Orc Paragon from unearthed arcana
|
|
I think the Pathfinder ranger is awesome, although I've always disliked the 'two weapon fighting' thing which is a direct rip of drizzt...Um...No. Ever see the original BBC Robin Hood? There are plenty of precedents for TWF 'sides that ... blasted Drow. Seriously. :)
In Japan, two sword style was quite common among the samurai. Between the 17th and 19th centuries there are a few references to duels being fought in England using two swords, and prior to the 17th century it was quite common to fight with a sword in one hand and a dirk or dagger in the other. Often the smaller weapon would be designed in such a way as to be able to be used to snap an opponents sword.