Treantmonk's Guide to Rangers (Optimization)


Advice

151 to 200 of 488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

grasshopper_ea wrote:


Well see, now that all depends. If the ranger spots the enemies 120 feet away and entangles them and proceeds to kill them all before they ever get a chance to attack, then yes.

Here's the thing though, you're talking about the ranger acting on his own when he's going to be in a party with other specialists. So to that end, if the ranger can entangle and shoot, more likely than not the druid or wizard can entangle or web, which allows a fighter archer to do the same thing and it'll happen and be finished a round sooner, because he'll have been shooting the whole time as opposed to casting then drawing and shooting. Unless of course your ranger is acting on his own... in which case why is he separated from the party?

Quote:
If he's fighting a red dragon, he might want to use that resist energy.

Or more likely he'd rather be shooting at the dragon so the fight finishes sooner while a caster protects him.

Quote:
Anyone can take master craftsman, they also have to take a craft or profession skill. Our fighter's now down to 1 skill point per level.

As I pointed out earlier a human fighter with a 12 or 13 int has 5 points each level (favored class) and both from an roleplaying and a optimization POV, crafting skills are useful enough to take and to max out especially if you intend to use them for crafting magic items.

Quote:

The fact that anyone can do it doesn't make it a good idea.

The points you're making are simply your personal preferences.

Actually no they're not. My personal preference was to play a ranger, but I find myself questioning that decision because I don't see that an alternate build isn't actually a better choice to create a ranger-y character who's actually better than the ranger outside of a few narrow situations.

Quote:
Also, rangers can make scrolls, wands, etc. where fighters can only make wonderous items/magical arms and armor

True enough, but wouldn't you rather have a pure caster make those charged items not only from the perspective of not wasting the ranger's limited feat progression, but also wider selection of spells?


Petrus222 wrote:
grasshopper_ea wrote:


Well see, now that all depends. If the ranger spots the enemies 120 feet away and entangles them and proceeds to kill them all before they ever get a chance to attack, then yes.
Here's the thing though, you're talking about the ranger acting on his own when he's going to be in a party with other specialists. So to that end, if the ranger can entangle and shoot, more likely than not the druid or wizard can entangle or web, which allows a fighter archer to do the same thing and it'll happen and be finished a round sooner, because he'll have been shooting the whole time as opposed to casting then drawing and shooting. Unless of course your ranger is acting on his own... in which case why is he separated from the party?

Rangers/monks/rogues often scout ahead.

Petrus222 wrote:


Quote:
If he's fighting a red dragon, he might want to use that resist energy.
Or more likely he'd rather be shooting at the dragon so the fight finishes sooner while a caster protects him.

How many people can the cleric cast resist energy on in one turn, and how many did he prep that day?

Petrus222 wrote:


Quote:
Anyone can take master craftsman, they also have to take a craft or profession skill. Our fighter's now down to 1 skill point per level.

As I pointed out earlier a human fighter with a 12 or 13 int has 5 points each level (favored class) and both from an roleplaying and a optimization POV, crafting skills are useful enough to take and to max out especially if you intend to use them for crafting magic items.

a human ranger with 12 int and favored class bonuses has 9 skill points each level

Petrus222 wrote:


Quote:

The fact that anyone can do it doesn't make it a good idea.

The points you're making are simply your personal preferences.
Actually no they're not. My personal preference was to play a ranger, but I find myself questioning that decision because I don't see that an alternate build isn't actually a better choice to create a ranger-y character who's actually better than the ranger outside of a few narrow situations.

What makes a fighter rogue more ranger-y than the ranger?

Petrus222 wrote:


Quote:
Also, rangers can make scrolls, wands, etc. where fighters can only make wonderous items/magical arms and armor
True enough, but wouldn't you rather have a pure caster make those charged items...

Rangers and paladins are both great characters to take craft wand, because making a 1st caster level 1st spell level wand of resist energy or lesser restoration is a lot nicer than a 3rd caster level 2nd spell level of the same type made by a cleric/druid. Saves you lots of money.


So...two comments, that have been made before in this thread, but I think they bear repeating, without other stuff distracting from them:

1: Can character build X solo monster Y. That's...pretty danged irrelevant to both A: The core assumption of D&D (An adventuring party), and a very high percentage of D&D games (Which, indeed, have an adventuring party). The value of a class/character/build should really only be considered, IMO, for the actual game implementation/philosophy of how does it work in a party.

2: Are the benefits of the ranger's class's various skills, situational benefits, spells, animal companion, and abilities worth trading off the pure martial prowess of a fighter/etc.? That's far too situational to your individual game, party composition, play style, and personal opinion to have _any_ meaningful global answer. If you think no...then don't play a ranger :).


Petrus222 wrote:
It's kind of disheartening, but the more I read here, the more I wonder why you'd play a ranger over a fighter.

Why play any other martial combatant over a fighter? Because the Ranger brings different abilities to the table than a fighter.

Quote:
Ranger Tracking? Fighter takes Survival

Yep, a fighter can take survival and track. However, the fighter also probably doesn't have a great Wisdom, no class skill bonus, and no class special ability.

Therefore, expect the Ranger to start at first level with a +4 at least over you, and that amount increases consistantly as levels increase.

Fighters can take Spellcraft too, but the Wizard does it way better.

Quote:
Yeah the fighter won't do it as well, but if the success of the adventure hinges on the fighter making a tracking role, it's not that well designed and given the disparate range of parties available no adventure should critically rely on a check only one class can feasibly make.

Tracking is a non-combat tool, just like Diplomacy. The success or failure of a quest may not rely on making the skill, just like building a house may not rely on you having an electric saw...but it helps.

Based on your argument - nobody needs to be good at any skill. After all, a well designed adventure isn't going to rely on the use of any skill that might not be represented in a party, and that could be any skill.

I think it's a weak argument. Play the game, skills come up all the time, and having them is moderately helpful, but it's far better to be good at them, and even better to be very good at them.

Quote:

An Animal companion? Fighter takes Leadership

Sure the Animal Companion comes 3 levels ealier but at level 7 I'll pit your level 3 cheetah against my level 5 NPC cleric or specially trained animal and probably come out on par or ahead.

I'm not sure how these abilities even relate. Leadership brings an NPC into your party under your leadership, AC is a class ability. The Ranger can take leadership too - but what of it?

The Wizard can Planar Bind a demon too. Does that invalidate Animal Companion too?

Druids do Animal Companion better than Rangers. Nobody else is even in the game of animal companions. The 5th level Monk can hire a 10th level Paladin to join the party - I guess that invalidates animal companion too.

Quote:

Favored enemy?

Wpn specialization and Wpn training and that applies to everyone not just a select group. Sure you get some skill bonuses against the favored enemy, but in truth how likely is it that the ranger is ever going to be the face of the party when there's a bard, sorceror or paladin in the party?

Ignore the skill bonuses for a moment. If favored enemy (undead) was your first selection, then at level 16 you fight a Lich - your attack and Damage bonus against that Lich is +8. The Fighter hasn't got even a comparible bonus.

Now that we've determined that against favored enemies the bonus of a Ranger outclasses a fighter's feats, let's take a look at skills. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Favored Enemy somehow makes you a diplomat. The bonus to skills (also +8 in the example) are to Bluff (feint), Perception (acting in the surprise round), Knowledge (identify weaknesses and abilities), and Sense Motive (protect against Feint attempts). These are skills that directly relate to combat. Skill bonuses that a fighter just isn't going to have.

Quote:
There's more comparisons

Good, keep 'em coming

Quote:
like this and there is no real match for things like favored terrain, but it really feels like the ranger comes out a little short in the long run

Yet I haven't seen how yet.

Quote:
There's no niche in the party that can't be filled by another class just as effectively... and so many of those other classes are better at those things than the ranger.

Niche: Martial scout. Either Archer, melee or mixed.

Quote:
So yeah while the ranger gets some neat abilities, a lot of them really feel like they're intended for solo use... which is great if you're playing by yourself... but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a party of adventurers.

Skills like survival are certainly solo use, as are skills like stealth.

Other skills that are solo use:

Disable Device: So long rogues
Perform: Bye Bye Bards
Animal handling: Goodbye Druids
Spellcraft: Farewell Wizards
Diplomacy: Piss off Paladins

etc.

In fact - most skills tend to be performed solo, but tend to benifit the entire party...Ranger skills are no different.

Quote:
It's not so much that I'm a hater, but rather a wilderness oriented fighter or fighter rogue out-ranger's the ranger in a lot of ways.

Still waiting for one.

Quote:
a ranger can either do archery well, or TWF, only he doesn't get the heavy armor to stand face to face with the enemy has a high dex requirement and expensive costs for upgrading his weapons.

Barbarians and Monks don't get the heavy armor either. Rangers have medium armor, good HP, usually a decent dex...not equivalent to a fighter in melee, but way better off than a Rogue or a Cleric.

Not sure how his weapons got more expensive than everyone elses? Are we discussing having two weapons?

Interesting how when discussing TWF that doesn't come up, but if it's a greatsword and a bow, then it does.

The costs of enchantments are non-linear. Naturally you want your melee weapon to be the primary enchantment on a Switch Hitter build, while your Bow is the primary enchantment on an archery build. The other gets a lesser enchantment (usually +1 behind), and the cost is going to be something easily handled.

Quote:
As to the animal companion, the more I think about it, the more it looks like Leadership would be a better choice.

Still don't get the either/or comparison. I'll take leadership over animal companion too. However, it's not a choice between them. The Ranger can have an Animal Companion, or Leadership and an Animal companion.

A Non-ranger (or druid) can have no animal companion, or no animal companion and Leadership.

How this became a disadvantage for Rangers in your eyes I will never know.

It would be no different to say a Druid gets a bonus to Knowledge (Nature) rolls, but I can just take Skill Focus (Knowledge:Nature) with a fighter. SO?

Quote:
Ranks of UMD and skill focus UMD or a level of rogue do that better than the ranger does. (Wand of fire ball vs magic fang or a round or two spent buffing as opposed to fighting.)

This is my favorite. Especially considering that you were arguing that a Ranger couldn't afford a second magic weapon earlier - but your fighter apparently can afford Scrolls, wands and Staves. Nice.

But yes, anyone can take UMD, even a Ranger. He likely won't, because he's got lots of other skills to pick from, but hey, my Ranger can't throw those skill points around like your fighter apparently.

Quote:
Also number of skill points isn't really relevant in a lot of ways. Take a human fighter with favored class fighter and 12 or 13 Int. That's 5 SP for maxed survival, perception, and UMD, plus two other skills. Dip a level of rogue here and there and suddenly the skill points aren't so relevant any more.

I didn't realize number of skill points had become irrelevant. Don't tell the rogue.

Quote:
True enough... until you need to hunt hobgoblins in the woods. All of a sudden the fighter's wpn focus, wpn training and weapon specialization which apply all the time to all opponents are looking a lot better.

OK. If your final point is that against a non-favored enemy, in non-favored terrain, a fighter is the better combatant.

I absolutely agree. I would even agree that a fighter is a better combatant in general, since favored enemies are situational.

If being the absolute best melee combatant you can be is your singular goal, then you SHOULD be playing a fighter, because that is really a great option for that goal.

Picking a Ranger over a fighter shifts the balance towards scouting, tracking, sneaking, skirmishing, with some minor spell use. You do not sacrifice the ability to fight martially, but you do reduce it. This stuff does not come free.

However, the idea that you can make a fighter to simply replace a Ranger in the non-combat stuff is really unconvincing.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

insaneogeddon wrote:
I think giving Rangers TWF is a product of Drizzt in specific, and not a product of Ranger imagery being especially geared towards TWF.

Your youth is showing! 2E and, iirc, 1E rangers got 2-weapon fighting, which was the reason they were so coveted: 2 attacks a round at 1st level. Drizzt had TWF because he was originally a 2E ranger. 3E rangers had TWF because of their 2E/1E roots.

Farabor wrote:
smart stuff

+1, sir.


aptinuviel wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


As for the round-by-round, there are lots of nitpicks to pick. Why does the ettin blow its AoO on the cat when the guy has a giant greatsword

Because the opportunity to hit the cat came first, and because when the Ettin takes that attack of opportunity, the Ranger is holding a Bow and there is no reason to assume the Ranger is entering melee. Or does the Ettin also know that the Ranger is a Switch Hitter and has Quick Draw?

A Man in Black's strategy with his Ranger was to have the cat move in to harry the Ettin while he stayed back and picked away with a bow. I suppose in that situation, your Ettin would know to take the opportunity attack on the cat, since it would be his only opportunity?

Quote:
why does the ettin keep splitting its attacks

When he can attack the Ranger, I had him choose that option exclusively.

Quote:
why doesn't the ettin trip the guy when he tries to run away (CMB +14 versus CMD 22, and the ranger is 10' away so he can't reach to AoO back)

First, I believe it was clarified by Jason that you can't trip on an AoO (which is new for Pathfinder I guess), second, lucky your Ettin can work out that math in his head and knows the CMD of the Ranger in advance to make sure the mathematical calculation is correct that his odds are over 50/50.

If my DM asked for my Rangers CMD, and said it was so he could compare it to the Ettin's CMB to determine if it was a statistically appropriate manouver for his INT 6 giant to consider, I think I would break into laughter.

Quote:
But that's nitpicking. The real question is, "Why does the ranger go into melee at all when you describe it as a mistake from the beginning?"

I think you misunderstood. I suggested allowing the Ettin a full attack, when skirmishing could avoid that, was a mistake. The Ranger did it anyways, because I usually don't metagame with out of character knowledge...*cough* *cough*

Quote:
The Ettin has a 60% chance to hit the ranger, not a 55%. Also, TM appears to have rounded the Ranger and Pet numbers up, while rounding the Ettin's down

I did make a mistake on chance to hit. 60% is correct.

I rounded all numbers to the nearest whole number. There really was no conspiricy like you are suggesting here.

Second, is the Ettin really not using Power Attack?
Quote:

There was a 5% chance of hitting error, but I decided whether the Ettin used power attack or not was irrelevant.

What I determined (using the 5% incorrect to hit) was:

Full attack without powerattack: (13 x .55, .55, .30. .30)=22.1

Full attack with powerattack: (17 x .45, .45, .2, .2) = 22.1

So I didn't bother adding it.

Quote:
I'm amused at the assertion that this is the worst possible case for the Ranger as well. He's caught a nocturnal hunter with an exceptional perception out in an open field during the day at an exceptionally convenient range. Also, given he has a lower initiative than the Ettin he can't really complain about losing that. But that's mostly all "nitpicking".

The situation had been pre-set, and not by me. (rounds of range, opponent, and I'm assuming time of day...I don't really see a human Ranger scouting at night...wouldn't really make sense - I suppose we could have the Ettin stumble upon the Ranger already dead - that would be "worst possible scenario").

I gave the worst possible case in terms of dice offs, including perception vs stealth, Favored enemy, Favored terrain and Initiative. Yes, chances were higher the Ranger would loose initiative anyways.

I don't think I was deceptive in this regard - it seems that's what you are implying.

Quote:
The problem is that there's no really good response to someone claiming that a particular build is "viable" or "fine". These are generic and vague claims made with no basis or frame of reference.

Now this point I agree with. My builds are my recommendations. I can back them up with reasoning, and potential uses, but everything is situational or theoretical. Proving a build is good simply isn't going to happen - there are too many variables. Evidence can be compiled, but it will take people trying the builds in actual gameplay and providing feedback.

I've read the rules and played them, but obviously I'm not going to play every build I ever come up with. Wish I could, but the reality is that it's just not going to happen.

Therefore, my builds are builds that I believe to be an optimal use of the resources available, taking options that in my opinion work well together. Proofs are for math, and although the game involves math - infinite variables make proof impossible. We can come up with total bonus to hit, total bonus damage - but the situation makes these numbers of variable importance.

It's easier to read my Guides like you would read the reviews of a movie reviewer.

There are some reviewers that I think are terrible. I'll read their reviews only so I can see how much I disagree with everything they said, I can tell just from what they're writing, that their opinion of a movie that I've never seen doesn't relate to what I'll think of it AT ALL.

There are reviewers that I think raise some interesting points, and I'll cherry pick stuff from their reviews that I think is of interest to me.

There are other reviewers I think are quite good, and I'll use their reviews as a guide for when I want to see a movie, what movie is a good bet I'll enjoy.

No reviewer is ever the latter to everyone, nor is any optimizer...me included.


Charlie Bell wrote:


Farabor wrote:
smart stuff
+1, sir.

No kidding. Definitely a smart guy.

I don't know how I got dragged into "Ranger vs. Ettin" wars, but I really should know better.

Next thing I'm going to get dragged into "Who wins in a fight between a Ranger and a Fighter."

When I do that - ignore everything I have to say from that moment on!


Treantmonk wrote:


Yep, a fighter can take survival and track. However, the fighter also probably doesn't have a great Wisdom, no class skill bonus, and no class special ability.

Therefore, expect the Ranger to start at first level with a +4 at least over you, and that amount increases consistantly as levels increase.

You're missing the point here which is ironic when one of your later points supports the point I'm making. Specialists are the ideal, but the only thing that the ranger is truly a specialist at is tracking. However if an adventure relies on having a ranger to track something and the party can't succeed with out that, it's a pretty poorly designed adventure due simply to the huge range of party compositions available.

Quote:
Fighters can take Spellcraft too, but the Wizard does it way better.

Is a ranger's knowledge of spellcraft called on that often? No, because generally you'd rely on the wizard or sorceror or any of the other caster classes for that.

Quote:
Tracking is a non-combat tool, just like Diplomacy. The success or failure of a quest may not rely on making the skill, just like building a house may not rely on you having an electric saw...but it helps.

But's it's not critical to the success of the party either.

Quote:
Based on your argument - nobody needs to be good at any skill. After all, a well designed adventure isn't going to rely on the use of any skill that might not be represented in a party, and that could be any skill.

No based on my arguement, it doesn't make sense to take a class because they're good at one thing that has extremely limited application (and can be nearly duplicated by other classes like druids.)

Quote:


I'm not sure how these abilities even relate. Leadership brings an NPC into your party under your leadership, AC is a class ability. The Ranger can take leadership too - but what of it?

The Wizard can Planar Bind a demon too. Does that invalidate Animal Companion too?

My point is that if you want to build a ranger flavor character, you can get a ton of similar abilities as a fighter and be a better archer or skirmisher than the ranger is.

Quote:
Ignore the skill bonuses for a moment. If favored enemy (undead) was your first selection, then at level 16 you fight a Lich - your attack and Damage bonus against that Lich is +8. The Fighter hasn't got even a comparible bonus.

Are you sure about that? From the PSRD:

At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored enemy. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by +2.

So in your example 16th ranger:
Undead +8 to hit and damage
Favored enemies 2-4 are only at +2

Compare to a 16th fighter:
Wpn training +3 to hit and damage
Wpn Focus and GWF another +2 to hit
Wpn spec and GWS another +4 to damage.

So +5 to hit and +7 to damage all the time.

You say: "Now that we've determined that against favored enemies the bonus of a Ranger outclasses a fighter's feats"
Sure the ranger wins if that lich's henchmen and guards are all undead, but if they aren't? The edge goes to the fighter by a long way even for favored enemies 2-4.

As to the skills for terrain and Fav Enemy bonus, they may be balancing, but only in the right situations and that requires a lot of cooperation between the GM and player that may not be there simply because the GM wants to run an adventure that the ranger isn't built for or because from an RP persecpective there's no reason a ranger would necessesarily know anything about a specific favored enemy. (A level 1 ranger has probably never seen met or stalked a giant let alone an orge, but some how he's an expert on it? Yeah there's situations where it makes sense, but others not so much.)

Quote:

Skills like survival are certainly solo use, as are skills like stealth.

...
In fact - most skills tend to be performed solo, but tend to benifit the entire party...Ranger skills are no different.

And the only one they really bring to the table is tracking... and other classes are good enough at it, that it's not a selling point for the ranger.

Quote:
Are we discussing having two weapons?

I was.

Quote:
Interesting how when discussing TWF that doesn't come up, but if it's a greatsword and a bow, then it does.

In that case if you're talking about TWF than it's really three isn't it for both melee and ranged.

Quote:

I'll take leadership over animal companion too...

How this became a disadvantage for Rangers in your eyes I will never know.

Quote:

My point isn't that it's a disadvantage, but rather that isn't an advantage that would justify taking the class. i.e. there's other better ways to do that that are available to other classes.

Quote:
It would be no different to say a Druid gets a bonus to Knowledge (Nature) rolls, but I can just take Skill Focus (Knowledge:Nature) with a fighter. SO?

Yeah but what's the ranger's schtick? It's killing stuff with arrows or melee wpns which the fighter happens to be very good at too if not better than the ranger. That means to justify taking a ranger the other benefits of that class need to be more than the fighter's... and they're not at least in a consistent manner.

The ranger is great and really shines in his favored terrain against favored enemies... anywhere else he's mediorce. So if your schtick is killing things without a ton of magic, why not take a class that may not excell as well in a few situations, but has greater effectiveness everywhere else?


The simple fact that rangers get improved precise shot at level 6 without meeting the pre-reqs is reason enough to take a ranger over a fighter. Every time the fighter misses due to soft cover his weapon spec is a wasted feat. The fighter qualifies for this at level 11. The ranger already has pinpoint targetting, the fighter has to wait til 16, the end of the campaign.

Rangers are an incredible class. A properly built fighter can dish out more damage, and he should, but I think that wild empath, hunter's bond, favored enemies/terrain, tons of skills, and spellcasting makes the ranger a pretty decent class also.


Edit: Poorly written post - skip to the next.


Sigh...the last post was poorly written by me.

Let me try a different approach.

You can make a fighter who has great AC, To Hit, Damage, and HP. Mathematically he has every advantage. The Plusses stand out on the page like stars in the sky.

I cannot make a Ranger to match mathematically. The Ranger will have good AC, good To Hit, good Damage and good HP, and combat versatility however, he will have lesser mathematical advantage overall.

However, the Ranger's other abilties and combat versatility can give tactical advantage.

Mathematical Numerical advantage is way overrated. I understand it's easy. It's much easier to compare the usability of two combatants by comparing their to hit and damage numbers. Line them up and roll the dice, and the winner is superior.

There are other factors you ignore when you evaluate that way. Factors that win battles.

Whether it's using an AC to flank or draw attacks of opportunity,

Or it's Stealth/Perception giving the Ranger actions in the Surprise round

Or an entangle spell is being used to divide and conquer

...the Ranger simply has more tools in the toolbelt to provide that advantage than the fighter does. This is why the Ranger can hold the same "niche" in a party as a fighter and be successful.

When the party gets tactical advantage, they win. The game is set up this way. If winning a battle was just math and luck, this game would be boring (like 4e, which is why I switched).

That said, a fighter WITH tactical advantage is better than a Ranger with tactical advantage - but that difference is irrelevant, in either case the battle is won and the cost will be minimal.

A Fighter WITHOUT tactical advantage is also better than a Ranger without tactical advantage, and has a better chance of pulling off a victory despite being outplayed and out manouvered. This is a REAL advantage of a fighter over a Ranger, and a real reason why some people will play a fighter over a Ranger everytime.

However, a Ranger has a better chance of gaining tactical advantage, he has more abilities at hand to help him achieve it. More creativity, planning and thought are required - if you are a "roll player" this class isn't for you, but if you are good at this kind of thing, the Ranger has it in spades.

P.S.

Tracking is just gravy.


Treantmonk wrote:


...the Ranger simply has more tools in the toolbelt to provide that advantage than the fighter does

And the crux of my arguement is that toolbelt is not only situational, but can be nearly duplicated by the fighter if he so chooses. No the fighter will never be 100% of the ranger at those non-combat situations, but if he hits even 75% of them, has party members who can emulate the other ranger specials and is better in combat what then? The Paizo modules don't pull punches and if you've got sub-optimal flavor builds in your party or even simply make a mistake, a TPK isn't uncommon. (Go look at the obituary threads if you need examples.)

Quote:
More creativity, planning and thought are required - if you are a "roll player" this class isn't for you, but if you are good at this kind of thing, the Ranger has it in spades.

Kind of my point actually. If you're not a roll player, there's no reason all that creativity, planning and forethough you're talking about can't be used by a fighter.

Anyways it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(And for the record, my questions were never about your builds, I rather liked them. It was more to do the class itself.)

The Exchange

Give it up Treant. Petrus is determined to continue acting like all of the Ranger's abilities pale in comparison to a fighter's because a fighter can fight better, can take the skills and be worse at them, and no proper adventure should ever have skill usages that matter. Some people just won't see the forest for all the trees.

I almost do want to see a solo fight between a fighter and a ranger. The switch-hitter ranger with entangle and an AniComp I believe would have the upper hand against a melee oriented fighter. And if not the ranger could run away (faster) and the fighter couldn't track him anyway.


I'm fine agreeing to disagree. As for your final arguments, I'll leave them to stand on their own.


Fake Healer wrote:


I almost do want to see a solo fight between a fighter and a ranger. The switch-hitter ranger with entangle and an AniComp I believe would have the upper hand against a melee oriented fighter. And if not the ranger could run away (faster) and the fighter couldn't track him anyway.

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, because we got along pretty good in general, but as for this paragraph:

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Hopefully that isn't too subtle. ;)

The Exchange

Treantmonk wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:


I almost do want to see a solo fight between a fighter and a ranger. The switch-hitter ranger with entangle and an AniComp I believe would have the upper hand against a melee oriented fighter. And if not the ranger could run away (faster) and the fighter couldn't track him anyway.

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, because we got along pretty good in general, but as for this paragraph:

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Hopefully that isn't too subtle. ;)

lol!! Sorry dude! Just tired of hearing all the ranger bashing in a ranger optimization thread. It's like hearing that

A- a cleric is a better caster than a bard.
B- a fighter is better in combat than a bard.
C- a fighter or cleric can both take bard skills and be ok at them.
D- a rogue is better at stealth than a bard.
E- wizards or clerics can party buff better than a bard.
F- bards suck.
It's just getting old and I would like it to stop.


There is a way around the whole fighter can do a switch better thing.

Make sure he cannot. Thats the boon of a low dex build over a high dex build.


I don't think anyone was suggesting the Fighter could do the switch hitter thing (I don't think so anyways).

Being able to ignore attribute prereqs is a big advantage for the combat-style feats for sure.


For what its worth Treantmonk, I've never (and by that i mean never, ever) played a ranger.. but I may give it a go next time I get the
chance. Sounds like alot more fun that I gave it credit for.

-S


Treantmonk wrote:

I don't think anyone was suggesting the Fighter could do the switch hitter thing (I don't think so anyways).

Being able to ignore attribute prereqs is a big advantage for the combat-style feats for sure.

I built up a switch hitter for my wife to play in a one off game (Erik Mona's Spire of Nex preview at NeonCon actually). Her character did just fine and no one complained that she wasn't pulling her weight.

As far as I'm concerned, it works as advertised, it's not an all star at either role but it's pretty solid in both.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Nitpicks since I don't have time for more holistic criticism...

Treantmonk wrote:
Ignore the skill bonuses for a moment. If favored enemy (undead) was your first selection, then at level 16 you fight a Lich - your attack and Damage bonus against that Lich is +8. The Fighter hasn't got even a comparible bonus.

Actually, the fighter has +3 to hit and +5 damage (and +4/+6 next level), even against the demon the lich summons or whatever. Not quite as good as +8/+8, mind, but universally applicable.

I've stayed out of this whole ranger vs. classes which aren't rangers because it's not important to me. I've only been concerned with whether a strategy makes use of a ranger's class abilities and whether it's an effective strategy against level-appropriate foes.

Quote:
Barbarians and Monks don't get the heavy armor either. Rangers have medium armor, good HP, usually a decent dex...not equivalent to a fighter in melee, but way better off than a Rogue or a Cleric.

Barbarians also get DR and +3 HP a level over a ranger, and clerics are only 1 HP a level behind a ranger and get, well, magic. Also, if the ranger isn't the toughest member of the party (and rangers are behind barbarians, fighters, some clerics, and most paladins in that respect), then the ranger is unlikely to get survival buffs unless and until the toughest member of the party already has them.

The point is that rangers are second-line melee, and thus need to enter melee with the knowledge that the hardest hardcore melee combatants will wreck them if given the time to do so. Quibbling about different margins of weakness in melee is rather beside the point; the only difference is that rangers are probably above the line where AC items and whatnot are a good idea, unlike rogues or druids who shouldn't bother with that junk at all.


Can we please just talk about how to build the best ranger and stay away from the compares to other classes. Some of us just *like* to play rangers. In fact it has been my first character for every new edition since I began playing back in the mid-80's with the Unearthed Arcana Ranger*.

-- david
Papa.DRB

(*Traine dan Torcan)


A Man In Black wrote:
Barbarians also get DR and +3 HP a level over a ranger, and clerics are only 1 HP a level behind a ranger and get, well, magic.

And wizards get mirror image and Druids get wildshape which can add to natural armor and Rangers get barkskin and rogues have a higher dex and...

...I don't get your point. We were discussing armor. Almost everyone has other tricks in the toolbelt for defense. Including the Ranger.

The argument has been: Barbarians have more HP, Fighters have more armor, Clerics have more spells, Rogues have more Dex, and the Druid's AC is better...etc, etc. Therefore, Ranger's can't do front line combat. You've just rephrased the same argument. Yes, different classes have different strengths.

But if you turn it on it's head: Rogues/Clerics/Druids have less HP, Barbarians/Fighters/Rogues have less spells, Clerics/Druids (and potentially others) have less dex, Rogues/Druids have less armor, Barbarians/Fighters/Rogues/Clerics don't have animal companions, Clerics/Rogues/Druids have less weapon proficiencies, Rogues/Clerics/Druids have worse BAB...etc. Again - so what? These kind of comparisons are pointless.

You just have to look at the package:

HP, Armor, BAB, Weapon Profs, Class abilities, Spells, Bonus feats, etc.

Since these things all work together to create defense and offense in melee, pointing out how one class has more HP, or two different classes have better armor means nothing.

You are just pointing out different strengths of different front liners. So what?

Though I will give you that the Fighter is the better melee front liner overall. I have no problem with that admission. I would make the same admission if this was a Rogue thread, a Barbarian thread, a Cleric thread etc., though I wouldn't be suggesting they avoid melee combat either. You do not need to trump the fighter to replace him.

Dark Archive

Treantmonk wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Barbarians also get DR and +3 HP a level over a ranger, and clerics are only 1 HP a level behind a ranger and get, well, magic.

And wizards get mirror image and Druids get wildshape which can add to natural armor and Rangers get barkskin and rogues have a higher dex and...

...I don't get your point. We were discussing armor. Almost everyone has other tricks in the toolbelt for defense. Including the Ranger.

The argument has been: Barbarians have more HP, Fighters have more armor, Clerics have more spells, Rogues have more Dex, and the Druid's AC is better...etc, etc. Therefore, Ranger's can't do front line combat. You've just rephrased the same argument. Yes, different classes have different strengths.

But if you turn it on it's head: Rogues/Clerics/Druids have less HP, Barbarians/Fighters/Rogues have less spells, Clerics/Druids (and potentially others) have less dex, Rogues/Druids have less armor, Barbarians/Fighters/Rogues/Clerics don't have animal companions, Clerics/Rogues/Druids have less weapon proficiencies, Rogues/Clerics/Druids have worse BAB...etc. Again - so what? These kind of comparisons are pointless.

You just have to look at the package:

HP, Armor, BAB, Weapon Profs, Class abilities, Spells, Bonus feats, etc.

Since these things all work together to create defense and offense in melee, pointing out how one class has more HP, or two different classes have better armor means nothing.

You are just pointing out different strengths of different front liners. So what?

Though I will give you that the Fighter is the better melee front liner overall. I have no problem with that admission. I would make the same admission if this was a Rogue thread, a Barbarian thread, a Cleric thread etc., though I wouldn't be suggesting they avoid melee combat either. You do not need to trump the fighter to replace him.

Does that mean you'll be doing the Rogue optimization guide next? : ) Lol.

Anyway, I agree with Treantmonk on this one. All the classes have their little niche abilities or designed goals. If you compare any class to another that was specifically designed to fit that role, it will lose. The Ranger, at least to me, was designed to be a scout/skirmisher. Not designed to be the best front line fighter, but much better at scouting than the guy wearing full plate.

Also, I noticed that you focused on combat applications for Animal Companions. I think fleshing out other uses for animal companions can go quite a ways toward helping people optimize for their build idea. For instance, birds might suck at combat( besides allowing you to flank ), but for a scout character they are fairly impressive. Especially with skill focus( Perception ).

You can also use the 4th lvl ability score increase to increase it's intelligence by 1 to 3. This allows it to take ranks in any skill it wants. Add skill focus and it can get pretty decent at a skill of your choice. Like an owl with a wand of fireballs raining fiery death from above. Or an ape with a wand of bull strength. Just keep him in bananas : )

Also there are a lot of tricks listed in the book that you can teach them. Going over the relative benefits and disadvantages for each companion might be good too.


Draeke Raefel wrote:
...Also there are a lot of tricks listed in the book that you can teach them. Going over the relative benefits and disadvantages for each companion might be good too.

I concur that the addition of a section assessing trainable tricks would be a good idea.


I don't mean to go off topic, but I have a question for Treant. I was just wondering what your next guide was going to be. I really liked the first two, and I can see that you are paying a lot of attention to detail.

After reading through the bard's spell comparison, I am yearning for a Wizard one. Please tell me it is on your to do list :D

The Exchange

Countmein wrote:

I don't mean to go off topic, but I have a question for Treant. I was just wondering what your next guide was going to be. I really liked the first two, and I can see that you are paying a lot of attention to detail.

After reading through the bard's spell comparison, I am yearning for a Wizard one. Please tell me it is on your to do list :D

I believe that Treant was trying to decide after Bard to do either Wizard or Ranger. I assume that he is going to do Wizzo but it will probably take a while with all the spells and the spell changes to go over, not to mention all the specialties.

Don't mean to speak for him or anything but that was my understanding.


I don't know if everyone was aware of this, because I wasn't until I re-read the hunters bond, but your animal companion shares your favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses. A little eagle can thrash some things with three attacks when it's STR gets up to 18 and it's power attacking, and getting the ranger's favored enemy bonuses.

Also the pathfinder chronicler came out with an ability that let's a ranger treat it's companion as 4 levels higher (up to his hit dice), so they can have just as many abilities on their companion as a druid.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Quote:
I think you misunderstood. I suggested allowing the Ettin a full attack, when skirmishing could avoid that, was a mistake. The Ranger did it anyways, because I usually don't metagame with out of character knowledge...*cough* *cough*

That's not an answer either. Let me put a finer point on it.

"How on earth is melee the main strategy of this character if you describe entering melee with a level-appropriate foe as a mistake?"

Treantmonk wrote:

And wizards get mirror image and Druids get wildshape which can add to natural armor and Rangers get barkskin and rogues have a higher dex and...

...I don't get your point. We were discussing armor. Almost everyone has other tricks in the toolbelt for defense. Including the Ranger.

The ranger has Barkskin and...

...uh...

The other classes likely to spend time on the frontline have defensive abilities on top of a robust hit die and medium armor, and the ranger mostly doesn't. You did the math yourself, a ranger has no business standing in melee for two full rounds with just an average level-appropriate foe.

There are three kinds of characters: characters who can eat full attacks until the enemy is dead (barbs, fighters, paladins), characters who can eat a full attack but not much more (pretty much everyone else), and characters who abhor melee (sorcerers, wizards, some rogues and druids).

If this is to be a useful guide, it needs to offer some insight on what is possible, not promise the world and call that optimal. It's not about what class is best, but what the class is capable of.


A Man In Black wrote:
"How on earth is melee the main strategy of this character if you describe entering melee with a level-appropriate foe as a mistake?"

The ranger should not be attempting to solo this monster (but for the sake of the example, he is). This monster is not level-appropriate to a single PC. That's the mistake. If the ranger had 3 buddies with him (aka adventuring party), entering melee wouldn't be a mistake.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

fanguad wrote:
The ranger should not be attempting to solo this monster (but for the sake of the example, he is). This monster is not level-appropriate to a single PC. That's the mistake. If the ranger had 3 buddies with him (aka adventuring party), entering melee wouldn't be a mistake.

Yes it would. If he stood in melee for two rounds and the ettin picked him to hit, he's still dead as a doornail. Characters who cannot take two full rounds of beating have no business standing where they can take two full rounds of beating.


grasshopper_ea wrote:
...Also the pathfinder chronicler came out with an ability that let's a ranger treat it's companion as 4 levels higher (up to his hit dice), so they can have just as many abilities on their companion as a druid.

Reference please? (Product and page number?)

Dark Archive

Product: Seeker of Secrets. Page: Look up Boon Companion in the index.


Draeke Raefel wrote:
Product: Seeker of Secrets. Page: Look up Boon Companion in the index.

Thanks. I don't have that book yet, which explains why the feat is unfamiliar to me. If it's in 'Seekers of Secrets', though, I think that makes it legal for organised play...


A Man In Black wrote:
fanguad wrote:
The ranger should not be attempting to solo this monster (but for the sake of the example, he is). This monster is not level-appropriate to a single PC. That's the mistake. If the ranger had 3 buddies with him (aka adventuring party), entering melee wouldn't be a mistake.
Yes it would. If he stood in melee for two rounds and the ettin picked him to hit, he's still dead as a doornail. Characters who cannot take two full rounds of beating have no business standing where they can take two full rounds of beating.

How long would a Fighter last in melee against this brute? 3 rounds? 4? Is it a mistake for the fighter to enter melee too?

Why do you keep assuming that these PCs are functional retards? Hypothetical scenario: a ranger and 3 of his buddies come across an ettin. Let's say that three of them engage in melee. The ettin decides to full attack the ranger, taking off more than half his HP. Smart ranger decides to back off, get some healing or something. What if the ettin had decided to beat on the rogue instead? Is your argument now that the rogue should never engage in melee?


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
grasshopper_ea wrote:
...Also the pathfinder chronicler came out with an ability that let's a ranger treat it's companion as 4 levels higher (up to his hit dice), so they can have just as many abilities on their companion as a druid.

Reference please? (Product and page number?)

I don't know I read it in my friends, I'm not a subscriber. He just got it and it has a green cover if that helps :)

edit: ninja's and outdone :)


A Man In Black wrote:
"How on earth is melee the main strategy of this character if you describe entering melee with a level-appropriate foe as a mistake?"

I explained it, then re-explained it, you're just not gettting it. Last try.

You: Melee Character = Someone who plays meatshield tactics exclusively and effectively.

Me: Melee Character = Entering melee and using melee attacks regularly and effectively.

So, if you understand my definition now, then I'll try one more time to repeat myself.

Entering Melee was not the mistake that the Ranger made. Letting the Ettin make a full attack was.

As a single melee character of 6th, standing toe to toe singlehandedly against an Ettin is poor tactics. Poor tactics for any melee character, whether he normally plays meatshield tactics or not.

The Ettin has 4 attacks a round, all do good damage. The Ettin's strength is centered around his full attack. Standing toe to toe with him when you have 1/2 the attacks is poor judgement, regardless of class.

If a whole party had been there, the Ettin dies on the first round of melee, because then the party has the offensive advantage, whomever the Ettin attacks will be damaged, but not likely in danger of death, even struck by a full attack. However, one character cannot drop him in a single round of melee, the damage requirement is just too high.

Alone, the Ranger must use tactics to defeat his enemy to remove the offensive advantage from his enemy. Therefore he uses melee skirmish tactics to remove the full attack option from his enemy.

This turns the offensive advantage the Ranger's way, since the Ranger has the better single attack, and better defense.

Quote:

If this is to be a useful guide, it needs to offer some insight on what is possible, not promise the world and call that optimal.

Please quote where I "promise the world".

I say that a switch hitting Ranger can be good at melee and ranged combat, I said that the weight of that ability tends towards the melee ability. I stand by those claims.

I don't remember suggesting, nor implying that a Ranger should be playing meatshield tactics in melee. I have no idea where you got the idea I did, but I would like it quoted please. In context please.

If you can't find the quote, then you can stop implying I'm promising that the Ranger can be one please.


Countmein wrote:

I don't mean to go off topic, but I have a question for Treant. I was just wondering what your next guide was going to be. I really liked the first two, and I can see that you are paying a lot of attention to detail.

After reading through the bard's spell comparison, I am yearning for a Wizard one. Please tell me it is on your to do list :D

I'm up to 8th level spells right now. For some stupid reason I decided to evaluate the entire Wizard spell list.

Once that's done I still have feat selection, skill selection, prestige classes, equipment suggestions....

It will be significantly longer than my last 2 guides, so it's taking awhile. I'm picking away at it faithfully though.

After the Wizard guide, I'm going to take a break for a few weeks, but I have future plans for a Druid guide, because I think it's needed in Pathfinder.

It's a class with full casting, decent HP, armor, a pretty tough animal companion, spontaneous summoning ability, and some very modest melee ability, yet with all this, a lot of people aren't quite sure what to do with him (I'm seeing posts on the boards that give me this impression anyways).

Likely because they can't get past the time when the Druid was the toughest melee class in the game, and aren't sure what niche he should fill now that he's no tank.


Treantmonk wrote:
Countmein wrote:

I don't mean to go off topic, but I have a question for Treant. I was just wondering what your next guide was going to be. I really liked the first two, and I can see that you are paying a lot of attention to detail.

After reading through the bard's spell comparison, I am yearning for a Wizard one. Please tell me it is on your to do list :D

I'm up to 8th level spells right now. For some stupid reason I decided to evaluate the entire Wizard spell list.

Once that's done I still have feat selection, skill selection, prestige classes, equipment suggestions....

It will be significantly longer than my last 2 guides, so it's taking awhile. I'm picking away at it faithfully though.

After the Wizard guide, I'm going to take a break for a few weeks, but I have future plans for a Druid guide, because I think it's needed in Pathfinder.

It's a class with full casting, decent HP, armor, a pretty tough animal companion, spontaneous summoning ability, and some very modest melee ability, yet with all this, a lot of people aren't quite sure what to do with him (I'm seeing posts on the boards that give me this impression anyways).

Likely because they can't get past the time when the Druid was the toughest melee class in the game, and aren't sure what niche he should fill now that he's no tank.

That's a good idea, reviewing all the spells. I've noticed some very subtle differences that make a big difference on how/when certain spells should be used now opposed to 3.5


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Treeantmonk,

I have found your handbooks both thought provoking and usefull. I have a preference for an pure archer build though I will use the elven curved blade with the quick draw feat for my next ranger. Part of my preference comes from my personal experience with bows. In high school I was a competitive archer and have studied Kyudo as an adult. Being at 300 feet from a foe with a 300+ feet per second bow seems safer than using a two handed weapon at arms length.

Thank you for the hard work,
Doug


Petrus222 wrote:

It's kind of disheartening, but the more I read here, the more I wonder why you'd play a ranger over a fighter.

Ranger Tracking? Fighter takes Survival
Yeah the fighter won't do it as well, but if the success of the adventure hinges on the fighter making a tracking role, it's not that well designed and given the disparate range of parties available no adventure should critically rely on a check only one class can feasibly make.

An Animal companion? Fighter takes Leadership
Sure the Animal Companion comes 3 levels ealier but at level 7 I'll pit your level 3 cheetah against my level 5 NPC cleric or specially trained animal and probably come out on par or ahead.

Favored enemy?
Wpn specialization and Wpn training and that applies to everyone not just a select group. Sure you get some skill bonuses against the favored enemy, but in truth how likely is it that the ranger is ever going to be the face of the party when there's a bard, sorceror or paladin in the party?

There's more comparisons, like this and there is no real match for things like favored terrain, but it really feels like the ranger comes out a little short in the long run. There's no niche in the party that can't be filled by another class just as effectively... and so many of those other classes are better at those things than the ranger.

So yeah while the ranger gets some neat abilities, a lot of them really feel like they're intended for solo use... which is great if you're playing by yourself... but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a party of adventurers.

Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but it kind of sucks to read a thread on character optimization and realize that another class is just as good if not better than the class you're reading about.

With improved precise shot and a move of 30 or 40 (longstrider spell) and the ability to move thru terains without MV penalties a ranger can take out 30 such fighters given time without even needing to hide. He can also retreat to heal, entangle etc etc.


As for the ettin fight i think the dwarf ranger with 2 crossbows (heavy and light), a waraxe and a buckler does well.


Just wanted to say, another great, in-depth look at Rangers with some interesting build options.

Switch-hitter is the only build I would want to play. Not keen on focused 2WF and I hate Legolas [pointy eared tool!].


stuart haffenden wrote:

Just wanted to say, another great, in-depth look at Rangers with some interesting build options.

Switch-hitter is the only build I would want to play. Not keen on focused 2WF and I hate Legolas [pointy eared tool!].

When push came to shove, Legolas got into melee, though. He was definitely something of a switch hitter. [/devil's advocate]


Disciple of Sakura wrote:


When push came to shove, Legolas got into melee, though. He was definitely something of a switch hitter. [/devil's advocate]

Well he was an elf... a lot of them swing that way.


Ughbash wrote:


Well he was an elf... a lot of them swing that way.

A lot of them just swing.... chaotic you see, mind you, if they all looked like Arwen there'd be no reason to swing at all!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

TreantMonk wrote:
that he's working on wizard and druid guides

::grabs popcorn::

::on second thought, puts on his holocaust cloak in anticipation of the impending flame wars::


stuart haffenden wrote:
Ughbash wrote:


Well he was an elf... a lot of them swing that way.
A lot of them just swing.... chaotic you see, mind you, if they all looked like Arwen there'd be no reason to swing at all!

Maybe that's the problem, they all look a bit too much like Arwen!

In the books I always liked Faramir, because he was the geek. (His father favored his brother because he was too "bookish", studying lore instead of studying his skills at war)

In the movies, it was all about Gandalf.

P.S.

Legolas would not have been a Ranger. Pure fighter.


Good guide. I'm a little biased since in 3.5 the half-orc TWF ranger was my second favorite character (bard being first). Seeing your favorite character dismissed immediately makes you kind of jaded (:

The switch hitter is nice (and a much better choice than in 3.5), but I'm not fully convinced of the suboptimal nature of TWF builds. It takes *a lot* of math to factor not only the damage differences between the specs, it also would require factoring a large number of random buffs/debuffs from other classes. I'm also weary of the archery builds, as they can be hammered by various spells/abilities/feats.

All in all, a good guide, especially with the spells.

151 to 200 of 488 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Treantmonk's Guide to Rangers (Optimization) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.